Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago high speed rail (Columbus, Toronto: estate, yard, retirement)

[Kevin1813]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Wrong again. your 2013 are estimates.

So your argument is that the cenus numbers are not exact and are actually in complete contrast to your numbers that you have not provided nor have said where you got them?

This is a fun game. Building a HSR system from Cincinnati to Chicago would cost less than purchasing 15 Ford F150's. Got numbers to discredit that statement? Doesn't matter, I've decided your numbers are wrong! Haha, this is fun!

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Wrong again. your 2013 are estimates.

Again, read what I wrote. Even if you discount 2013, 2010 is not an estimate year and the data would still not support what you claimed. Every city on the list is growing, and growing much faster than Cincinnati even if you don't count 2013. So if you brought up that list as proof that growth has no influence on success, it doesn't support that claim at all and I would probably check your sources more thoroughly.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by Kevin1813

What weather event would render it unusable? Earthquake? Tornado?

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...

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

That Amtrak service is not HSR, so it's not really fair or honest to use that as a reason why HSR wouldn't work. It also doesn't address any other potential issues, like fares, promotion, track-sharing, etc. What about air travel between Cincinnati and Chicago? Is density required for that?

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.

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Just about everything you said is wrong.

Let's look at some of the best, highest rated cities (Top 10 Best Cities for Families 2014 | Parenting) in America, OK?

Madison Wi has not gown in 10 years.

Virginia Breach has grown 10% since 1990.

Raleigh has not grown since 2005.

Worcester MA his the same population as 50 years ago.

Richmond Va shrunk 10% over the past 50 years.

Allentown PA is the same size it was in 1970.

Dallas Tx - Shrunk 10% in past 9 years.

Except for Dallas which has exactly zero public transportation, all of these small cities are top rated, not growing, and are about the same size as Cincinnati.

Not growing based on what? Because you clearly aren't judging these cities based on population growth.

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

The fact that AMTRAK is discontinuing its line to Chicago from Indianapolis is a pretty good indication that high speed rail will not work either at this time. At least not in the Cincy to Chicago corridor. Again, what people fail to grasp is the lack of population density required for this service to work. Light rail in Cincy might work since it has some areas with a high population density. Indy? Nope. Too spread out. High Speed Rail will work in the Northeast and California simply because the population densities are there to sustain the service.

As long as there's local transit that gets people to an HSR station, it really doesn't matter how spread out a city is. You can just have buses going to a train station and as long as buses reach the major areas of a city, then that's good enough.

Half the cities that California's HSR goes through have a population density less than that of Cincinnati if not about the same. Heck, Cincinnati has about the same population density as San Diego. So clearly it's not a determining factor in where HSR goes.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

As long as there's local transit that gets people to an HSR station, it really doesn't matter how spread out a city is. You can just have buses going to a train station and as long as buses reach the major areas of a city, then that's good enough.

Half the cities that California's HSR goes through have a population density less than that of Cincinnati if not about the same. Heck, Cincinnati has about the same population density as San Diego. So clearly it's not a determining factor in where HSR goes.

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.

[WILWRadio]

And another factor that must be considered is the practicality of riding it from a time management perspective. Will it be possible for "feeder" cities like Dayton or Anderson or Muncie, IN to schedule buses to arrive at the train station prior to arrival and departures? Time is money. People will grow weary of this service if it not only costs more money than driving to and from their destination but also time. I have to deal with people on a daily basis that slow me down at my job when I am trying to do it as quickly and accurately as possible. It does and has cost me quite a bit of money over the years. This is going to be a factor with the riders as well. If they can drive to Chicago in 3 hours but a train ride is going to take 4 to 5 hours after additional stops and also getting to the originating train station, few people will take it.

[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.

[WILWRadio]

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.

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.