Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago high speed rail (Blue Ash, Delta: transfer, maintenance, tax)

[RustBeltOptimist]

Yep. I misread a number when I originally compared Vancouver area so that's definitely not useful to my argument to continue that comparison. As for high speed rail, however, one thing to remember is that every incremental change in airlines that raises the cost or lowers the convenience of flying is pushing high speed rail closer to a disruption point where it will become the preferred method of intercity business travel. It's basically a matter of time for when it happens, but it's not an if. I measure the feasibility by air travel demand between cities (a single 1 am train is going to be a poor point of comparison for what travel demand will actually be there.) I actually don't think we're there yet, but I think it's close.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

Yep. I misread a number when I originally compared Vancouver area so that's definitely not useful to my argument to continue that comparison. As for high speed rail, however, one thing to remember is that every incremental change in airlines that raises the cost or lowers the convenience of flying is pushing high speed rail closer to a disruption point where it will become the preferred method of intercity business travel. It's basically a matter of time for when it happens, but it's not an if. I measure the feasibility by air travel demand between cities (a single 1 am train is going to be a poor point of comparison for what travel demand will actually be there.) I actually don't think we're there yet, but I think it's close.

When do you foresee the tipping point for high-speed train service from Cincinnati to Chicago? Also, what are the cost, ridership and fare estimates for 4 trains per day? Who or what is going to pay for this?

Cincinnati's too small of a metro area to warrant a high-speed train to Chicago. There's a reason there are only 3 weekly trains to Chicago at 1 am. If the demand were there, Amtrak would run a separate train.

Respectfully, this is just something a few rail-fans want to say it exists as most of them might use the high-speed train to Chicago once a year, if that.

Another joke is the high-speed train from Columbus to Chicago.

[RustBeltOptimist]

A hypothetical Cincinnati-Chicago line would have to include Indianapolis. So you would be serving two midsized metros on a direct route and even then you may also need commuter connections to Dayton and a few of Indiana's minor cities to get a justifiable amount of traffic. I think you're right that Cincy/Chicago on its own is not sufficient in commerce traffic to justify the cost. Add Indy though, and it's probably fairly close. If both cities continue to grow and as airlines continue to add costs in time and money, I think it could be viable in about 10-15 years. Columbus doesn't have the benefit of an Indy sized city on the direct route and Ft. Wayne is too small to justify that line. On the other hand, Columbus/Indy/Chicago would add Dayton, is less direct but could serve a lot of people. I guess that might work, but again it would be 10-15 years out.

Also, just saying, but trusting Amtrak's schedulers as an authority on transit demand might not be the wisest decision given their track record.

[rrtechno]

Originally Posted by Kamms

When do you foresee the tipping point for high-speed train service from Cincinnati to Chicago? Also, what are the cost, ridership and fare estimates for 4 trains per day? Who or what is going to pay for this?

Cincinnati's too small of a metro area to warrant a high-speed train to Chicago. There's a reason there are only 3 weekly trains to Chicago at 1 am. If the demand were there, Amtrak would run a separate train.

Respectfully, this is just something a few rail-fans want to say it exists as most of them might use the high-speed train to Chicago once a year, if that.

Another joke is the high-speed train from Columbus to Chicago.

The question should be, "Are there only 3 weekly trains from Cincinnati to Chicago, at 1 am because the demand is not there, or is the demand not there because there are only 3 weekly trains from Cincinnati to Chicago, at 1 am.?"

[ProkNo5]

Y'all know there's a train connecting Milwaukee and Chicago with no big cities in between making 7 daily runs, right?

Heck, look at Harrisburg (a city the size of Hamilton) with 8 daily trips to Philly and NYC.

Cincinnati can ABSOLUTELY support daily service to Chicago.

[Wilson513]

Milwaukee is a satellite of Chicago. Everyone in Milwaukee has a family member in Chicago. Every Milwaukee business has an office in Chicago.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by rrtechno

The question should be, "Are there only 3 weekly trains from Cincinnati to Chicago, at 1 am because the demand is not there, or is the demand not there because there are only 3 weekly trains from Cincinnati to Chicago, at 1 am.?"

If the demand were there, the service would be there.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by ProkNo5

Y'all know there's a train connecting Milwaukee and Chicago with no big cities in between making 7 daily runs, right?

Heck, look at Harrisburg (a city the size of Hamilton) with 8 daily trips to Philly and NYC.

Cincinnati can ABSOLUTELY support daily service to Chicago.

Philly has about 9 different Amtrak routes servicing its 30th Street Station; NY Penn has something like 14 Amtrak routes servicing Penn Station. As I stated, there are more lines running in the Wash-Boston corridor besides the Northeast Regional. This is due to the large, dense population on the east coast.

Cincinnati? No connections to any other Amtrak routes, let alone a local rail system feeding the Amtrak station and the metro area. It comes down to a sprawling metro area of 2.2 million people in Cincinnati.

Apples and oranges comparing the east coast population centers with Cincinnati.

But, then again, your post indicates that daily service from Cin-Chi would work; this means expanding the Cardinal Line to everyday with 1:23am Cinci departures? This high-speed line nonsense assumes demand for 4 daily trips. A Bullet Train from Cinci to Chicago; please, just stop this fantasy and the Columbus-Chicago delusion.

[Wilson513]

Chicago is no longer a place I'd want to go without a car handy. The loop is a great place to go if you need a large commercial bank, a lawyer, or an ad campaign. But, most people and all new businesses there are locating in the suburban sprawl called Chicagoland that covers 8 counties, 10k square miles, less than 1% of which is in walking distance of a train track.

In the Prius, the trip costs $30 each way and takes 5 hours with a stop for breakfast.

[ProkNo5]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Philly has about 9 different Amtrak routes servicing its 30th Street Station; NY Penn has something like 14 Amtrak routes servicing Penn Station. As I stated, there are more lines running in the Wash-Boston corridor besides the Northeast Regional. This is due to the large, dense population on the east coast.

Cincinnati? No connections to any other Amtrak routes, let alone a local rail system feeding the Amtrak station and the metro area. It comes down to a sprawling metro area of 2.2 million people in Cincinnati.

Apples and oranges comparing the east coast population centers with Cincinnati.

But, then again, your post indicates that daily service from Cin-Chi would work; this means expanding the Cardinal Line to everyday with 1:23am Cinci departures? This high-speed line nonsense assumes demand for 4 daily trips. A Bullet Train from Cinci to Chicago; please, just stop this fantasy and the Columbus-Chicago delusion.

Philly is the hub, just like Chicago would be. Harrisburg is the satellite city, just like Cincinnati would be. Keystone service is specifically for Harrisburg, a city of 50,000 people in a metro of 530,000 with no rail and only 6 day/week his service.