Any updates on the potential Columbus-Chicago high speed rail connection? (Mason: fit in, home)

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Natural510

I also don't see the demand there to justify taking money away from all the crumbling bridges and roads in the Midwest and rest of the country. In an ideal world, we would be moving away from our fossil-fueled vehicles and taking mass transit more often, but the reality is Americans love their cars and the freedom they offer, and there is quite a bit of outdated infrastructure which needs attended to first.

What money is being taken away?? From where? If you guys haven't bothered to read the proposal and the feasibility study that's been completed, perhaps you should before declaring it's a waste that won't work.

[Jbeechuk]

I hope this happens, but I am not holding my breath.

[PerryMason614]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

This proposal is not going 35mph.

The cost for the entire line is less than rebuilding a few miles of 70/71 in Columbus, and if the state doesn't pay for any of it, I don't see the problem. The cost would be divided between host cities and federal grants and would not require a public vote by Ohioans.

I love the cost hypocrisy when it comes to transit. As mediocre as the 3-C rail proposal was, using the 70/71 price tag as a benchmark, the entire proposal could've been constructed, operated and maintained for 100 years. But rail is somehow too expensive.

The proposal doesn't go through Indy or Cincinnati. There was a feasibility study already done that concluded the line would be well-travelled and profitable for whatever private company would run it.

Why do you need a train when the Megabus and Greyhound both accomplishes the same thing without spending billions of dollars? America first of all doesn't have the population density to justify trains. Trains work in the northeast because you have dense cities and Boston, New York, Philly and DC are all roughly two hours apart from each other. What is the density of the Columbus-Mansfield-Ashland route? Sounds like a loser to me.

There are people who need to get from Long Island to Manhattan regularly. There aren't many people who need to get to Chicago from Columbus to justify a fixed line.

Second, the same reason people don't like planes and busses will be used to avoid trains. Who wants to sit next to a bunch of stinky people and catch bedbugs from them? Not me. I'm driving.

What might make sense, however, might be to reestablsh the old interurban lines. That might be something useful to all the people commuting from surrounding counties for work in Columbus. Though I would imagine that if they don't take the bus into Columbus, they probably don't want to take an interruban either.

[Zen_master]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

This proposal is not going 35mph.

The cost for the entire line is less than rebuilding a few miles of 70/71 in Columbus, and if the state doesn't pay for any of it, I don't see the problem. The cost would be divided between host cities and federal grants and would not require a public vote by Ohioans.

I love the cost hypocrisy when it comes to transit. As mediocre as the 3-C rail proposal was, using the 70/71 price tag as a benchmark, the entire proposal could've been constructed, operated and maintained for 100 years. But rail is somehow too expensive.

The proposal doesn't go through Indy or Cincinnati. There was a feasibility study already done that concluded the line would be well-travelled and profitable for whatever private company would run it.

To be fair there is a long track record of feasibility studies in the world of public works that have failed. Harrisburg trash incinerator project is one, just about any stadium project is another. Not saying this one is bust, but you can make a feasibility study say just about whatever you want it to. I would imagine if the profit margin was there a private company would already be leading the charge and it wouldn't need to be a public-led project.

[jbcmh81]

=PerryMason614;40526873]Why do you need a train when the Megabus and
Greyhound both accomplishes the same thing without spending billions of dollars?
America first of all doesn't have the population density to justify trains.
Trains work in the northeast because you have dense cities and Boston, New York,
Philly and DC are all roughly two hours apart from each other. What is the
density of the Columbus-Mansfield-Ashland route? Sounds like a loser to me.

Why do you need personal cars or airplanes then, if the bus works? Why doesn't everyone use the same form of travel?

Ohio has a similar population density to say, France, which is one of many European countries with lots of passenger rail. And the route would take it to one of the most dense, most populated American cities.

And if rail wouldn't work in this route, why have roads between them? Wouldn't the same economics be in play? Why spend tons of money to build roads connecting these places if there's not enough people? Or are you of the mind that roads don't require any thought to their economics, only other forms of transit?

There are people who need to get from Long Island to Manhattan regularly.
There aren't many people who need to get to Chicago from Columbus to justify a
fixed line.

Not according to the feasibility study.

Second, the same reason people don't like planes and busses will be used to
avoid trains. Who wants to sit next to a bunch of stinky people and catch
bedbugs from them? Not me. I'm driving.

So drive then. The incentives for HSR would be that it's much faster than driving or taking the bus, but cheaper than air travel... and also one of the safest forms.

What might make sense, however, might be to reestablsh the old interurban lines.
That might be something useful to all the people commuting from surrounding
counties for work in Columbus. Though I would imagine that if they don't take
the bus into Columbus, they probably don't want to take an interruban either.

It's a separate issue.

One question, though: Do you believe that transit constitutes infrastructure or not? Specifically, are rail lines infrastructure? Why/why not?

[PerryMason614]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Ohio has a similar population density to say, France

Statistics are for losers. Paris has 12,000,000 alone (metro area). Show me those kinds of population figures clustered in one area somewhere in Ohio and then I might believe you.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by PerryMason614

Statistics are for losers. Paris has 12,000,000 alone (metro area). Show me those kinds of population figures clustered in one area somewhere in Ohio and then I might believe you.

France is a bit larger than Paris, and it would still constitute only a single destination along their rail corridors. Plenty of small towns and cities are also connected throughout the country. This argument is a total red herring.

Why did you ignore the rest of my post?

[bjimmy24]

Doesn't seem fair that people from not Ohio or Illinois should have to pay for a huge project that they won't ever use, and honestly, nobody in those effected place will either.

Budget airlines can get you there faster and cost effective. I'm taking a round trip Boston to Cleveland for $130, 110 minute flight.

Future is driverless cars anyway, at road level.

[PerryMason614]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

France is a bit larger than Paris, and it would still constitute only a single destination along their rail corridors. Plenty of small towns and cities are also connected throughout the country. This argument is a total red herring.

Why did you ignore the rest of my post?

A train to Fort Wayne is nothing like a train to Madrid, Barcelona, Amsterdam, The Hague, Zurich, Rome, Berlin, etc. These are all very high population metro areas. Fort Wayne is 300,000 people.

As the previous poster said, the future is driverless cars. I took the MegaBus to Chicago once for $25. We don't need on stinkin' 19th century technology in a not-densely populated country.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Doesn't seem fair that people from not Ohio or Illinois should have to pay for a huge project that they won't ever use, and honestly, nobody in those effected place will either.

Budget airlines can get you there faster and cost effective. I'm taking a round trip Boston to Cleveland for $130, 110 minute flight.

Future is driverless cars anyway, at road level.

What exactly makes you think no one will use it? I've seen this claim now 3 or 4 times with zero supporting evidence.

Why is it that no one is ever consistent on paying for transit infrastructure?

So everyone will be able to afford one of these cars then? And will the current infrastructure have to be changed at all to accommodate it? How much will that cost when current road infrastructure is still massively underfunded?