Cincy to Chicago HSR - Do you support it?

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by GearHeadDave

I'd have to say no for the following reasons:

1) Not particularly speedy, as with the multiple stops and getting around Indy, it will take longer than driving.
2) Not enough ridership to offset the cost to the environment, namely, jamming the right of way through the heartland of Indiana.
3) Really hard to justify investing in a massive new infrastructure, when our Interstate bridges and other major highway systems are crumbling. Fix the Brent Spence first?

And, it runs right through the snow belt, meaning that service will be about as dependable as the Amtrak.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Dust Belt. Just because cities have reciprocal offices does not mean they are going to have a lot of employees commuting on a daily or weekly basis between these cities. Unfortunately I cannot find a single shred of data on the internet showing any information on the number of people that commute to Chicago from Cincinnati and vice versa. Nothing. Until I can see that and how often they commute I will continue to assert that a HSR train is not cost effective based solely upon casual passenger traffic.

Wouldn't it be easier to move to a place that has the rail you desire? Most intelligent people choose a place to live based upon the amenities it has. I've weighed the mass transit option myself recently in light of the trouble I've had with bad drivers and car accidents that were not my fault. Thus, I bought a home on a bus line that runs frequently. And if worse comes to worse, I will relocate to a place like Pittsburgh that is still affordable yet also has a better mass transit service including rail. That makes infinite more sense than trying to force an agenda down the throats of a region that may not have the need or means to support rail. Get it?

I'm really not trying to force trains onto the city, unlike the auto culture that gets forced on everybody else whether we want it or not. I'm stating a case for rail, and I'm debating arguments that have little merit or statistical backing behind them, as you have done in the case against by asking for more evidence of commuter traffic to Chicago. I think it's fine that either of us state our claims, and try to back them as best we can. If the city decides it wants rail, that's fine, if not, I at least made the effort to back what I thought. Transit is only one of many amenities to consider when choosing a city, and I love Cincinnati for what it offers in other areas that I'm fond of, such as culture, architecture, live music, farmers' markets, festivals and neighborhood cohesiveness. I'm not necessarily going to move because one thing on my list of wants in a city is missing, but I will try to fight for the city to have that amenity that's missing. I don't think it's asking to much to be able to exercise my right to try and convince my fellow citizens it would be beneficial, if they decide otherwise, so be it.

[ProkNo5]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

And, it runs right through the snow belt, meaning that service will be about as dependable as the Amtrak.

Reliability of rail transportation is affected by snow so little its negligible. Actually, being in the snow belt gives rail a leg up over roads because snow absolutely does affect the reliability of bus transportation.