Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
My reference was about rail between cities in the same country, not across a continent and multiple countries. Nice move of the goalposts, though.
The car is over 100 years old. It's not new technology. And we're not talking steam trains, here.
How many forms of technology do you use every day that are much older than either one but are still completely useful?
Why didn't you answer any of my questions. Here, I'll repeat them for you.
1. Why do airplanes and buses exist if the car is the only thing one needs for travel? Or vice versa?
2. If population is too low between Columbus and Chicago to justify rail, why do we have roads between them if there are too few people to use them? Isn't that a huge waste? Wouldn't the same economics of use apply to the infrastructure, especially when roads lose money?
3. You don't see any value in something that travels faster than cars/buses, is cheaper than air travel and safer than both?
4. What exactly do you consider "infrastructure"? Should infrastructure be something that is built for the public good only, or something that needs to be profitable? If the former, why shouldn't rail be considered infrastructure? If the latter, why is rail the only form of travel that is required to be profitable without any public dollars? Even air travel is subsidized through public dollars. Columbus just spent $80 million upgrading its terminal, and it spent a lot more than that rebuilding roads to the airport. In another decade or so, it's planning a billion-dollar brand new terminal. Airlines aren't paying for that. Yet no one bats an eye. Why the difference?
2. If population is too low between Columbus and Chicago to justify rail, why do we have roads between them if there are too few people to use them? Isn't that a huge waste? Wouldn't the same economics of use apply to the infrastructure, especially when roads lose money?
Everything you use is transported by trucks on those roads. They are not just for passenger cars.
Please don't come back with some argument for rail shipping.
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?
Fundamental misunderstanding of how the market works. 100 years ago, cars were for the rich. Now a majority of Americans not only can afford them, but do drive them. 5 years ago, smart phones were for the rich. Now, they are ubiquitous across class. Yes, people will be able to afford driverless cars eventually, probably not even too much longer after they come out. Driverless cars would probably also make traffic faster, when you take idiots out of the equation. Then public transit would probably be better, you could have high capacity driverless buses that are much more cost effective than paying massive pensions. P2p economy is already solving transit issues, from uber to roadie, etc. for long and short trips. Just let the progress happen and get out of the 1850s. Yeah I know, high speed, but rail lines are incredibly inflexible and just too pricey for minimal benefit to a select few. How is that fair or ethical?
I think if you want a high speed line, there should be some organization of people who want to invest in it themselves to build it, instead of lobbying the state to force people from Arizona to pay for construction for someone from Columbus to use. But the reason nobody has started such an organization, I must surmise, is because it's a losing idea.
What exactly is wrong with megabus, that can do the same trip for like $30? Or spirit airways? Most transit oriented people are very narrow sighted in solutions. I sympathize with your desire to connect more places without a car, I haven't owned a car in my life anywhere I've lived. But I just think we need sensible modern, innovative solutions.
Read anything about Chicago's economy lately, by the way?
Everything you use is transported by trucks on those roads. They are not just for passenger cars.
Please don't come back with some argument for rail shipping.
Why not? The discussion was about passenger traffic, and availability of population to make it worth the investment, which would not factor into shipping. Is shipping done with personal cars or buses?
Roads also still lose money, and on a massively larger scale than all transit combined. But yes, I know, that's totally okay for the anti-rail folks who won't even address that elephant in the room.
[quote=bjimmy24;40542035]Fundamental misunderstanding of how the market works. 100 years ago, cars were for the rich. Now a majority of Americans not only can afford them, but do drive them. 5 years ago, smart phones were for the rich. Now, they are ubiquitous across class. Yes, people will be able to afford driverless cars eventually, probably not even too much longer after they come out. Driverless cars would probably also make traffic faster, when you take idiots out of the equation. Then public transit would probably be better, you could have high capacity driverless buses that are much more cost effective than paying massive pensions. P2p economy is already solving transit issues, from uber to roadie, etc. for long and short trips. Just let the progress happen and get out of the 1850s. Yeah I know, high speed, but rail lines are incredibly inflexible and just too pricey for minimal benefit to a select few. How is that fair or ethical?
Fundamental misunderstanding of how the market works. 100 years ago, cars were for the rich. Now a majority of Americans not only can afford them, but do drive them. 5 years ago, smart phones were for the rich. Now, they are ubiquitous across class. Yes, people will be able to afford driverless cars eventually, probably not even too much longer after they come out. Driverless cars would probably also make traffic faster, when you take idiots out of the equation. Then public transit would probably be better, you could have high capacity driverless buses that are much more cost effective than paying massive pensions. P2p economy is already solving transit issues, from uber to roadie, etc. for long and short trips. Just let the progress happen and get out of the 1850s. Yeah I know, high speed, but rail lines are incredibly inflexible and just too pricey for minimal benefit to a select few. How is that fair or ethical?
I think if you want a high speed line, there should be some organization of people who want to invest in it themselves to build it, instead of lobbying the state to force people from Arizona to pay for construction for someone from Columbus to use. But the reason nobody has started such an organization, I must surmise, is because it's a losing idea.
What exactly is wrong with megabus, that can do the same trip for like $30? Or spirit airways? Most transit oriented people are very narrow sighted in solutions. I sympathize with your desire to connect more places without a car, I haven't owned a car in my life anywhere I've lived. But I just think we need sensible modern, innovative solutions.
Read anything about Chicago's economy lately, by the way?
But had the federal government let the "progress" happen in 1950s and had Eisenhower not have the vision to see the future of American infrastructure, federal highway system would not be what it is today. Are you suggesting he was wrong to have government intervene the natural progression of America?
Uber drivers definitely fit into the idiots reckless drivers category.
But had the federal government let the "progress" happen in 1950s and had Eisenhower not have the vision to see the future of American infrastructure, federal highway system would not be what it is today. Are you suggesting he was wrong to have government intervene the natural progression of America?
Uber drivers definitely fit into the idiots reckless drivers category.
A) yes and b) you can take lyft if you don't like uber, or look into private buses popping up. Or just stay home and not do anything during those times when you can't depend on the state to drop you off somewhere. Your choice.
Fundamental misunderstanding of how the market works. 100 years ago, cars were for the rich. Now a majority of Americans not only can afford them, but do drive them. 5 years ago, smart phones were for the rich. Now, they are ubiquitous across class. Yes, people will be able to afford driverless cars eventually, probably not even too much longer after they come out. Driverless cars would probably also make traffic faster, when you take idiots out of the equation. Then public transit would probably be better, you could have high capacity driverless buses that are much more cost effective than paying massive pensions. P2p economy is already solving transit issues, from uber to roadie, etc. for long and short trips. Just let the progress happen and get out of the 1850s. Yeah I know, high speed, but rail lines are incredibly inflexible and just too pricey for minimal benefit to a select few. How is that fair or ethical?
I think if you want a high speed line, there should be some organization of people who want to invest in it themselves to build it, instead of lobbying the state to force people from Arizona to pay for construction for someone from Columbus to use. But the reason nobody has started such an organization, I must surmise, is because it's a losing idea.
What exactly is wrong with megabus, that can do the same trip for like $30? Or spirit airways? Most transit oriented people are very narrow sighted in solutions. I sympathize with your desire to connect more places without a car, I haven't owned a car in my life anywhere I've lived. But I just think we need sensible modern, innovative solutions.
Read anything about Chicago's economy lately, by the way?
Not sure what happened to my first post I responded to this but....
You're forcing people to buy cars by only building that type of infrastructure. There are plenty of people who can't afford a car today, but there are also plenty of people who would not buy one if they didn't have to because of forced circumstances. If I lived in Columbus again, I would very likely have to get a car because alternatives are pretty bad. There is car sharing, but it wouldn't make sense to do that every single day for work, and COTA's service is mixed at best. That's the situation in most American cities. I personally hate having to rely on a car, and I don't particularly like driving. You obviously prefer driving even if you don't right now or you wouldn't be arguing so hard for no other alternatives to be invested in, regardless if they are supported by the state or not. But why should your preference supersede mine or those like mine?
Driverless cars, again, don't solve any issues outside of safety. The infrastructure for roads would still have to be built and maintained, requiring the same subsidization that all pro-car people seem to be totally okay with while maligning significantly smaller levels for transit. And it still requires everyone to buy one and it's still everyone driving around alone. At the very least, riding a train doesn't require every single person to buy their own locomotive for the privilege. You talk about fair while telling everyone they need to conform to a single, expensive choice. This is not a television, this is a car.
The permanence of rail lines is what creates the related development. Based on studies done, buses have far less related economic impact because their routes could much more easily change. It's like comparing the economic impact of a Wal-Mart and 1000-spot surface parking lot in the exurbs vs. a 25 story mixed-use building in a downtown. You have a huge difference between the subsidization of infrastructure involved as well as the actual tax value returned to the location it's in. Buses and cars can't provide the same return as a train. If the goal is to actually create a system that is able to absorb more of its costs, than cheerleading for the personal car is an awful thing to do and it completely undermines the argument that it's a waste of money.
I don't understand the age argument of trains. Since when are cars a recent invention? So instead of relying on 1850s technology (because they apparently had bullet trains pre-Civil War), you're instead rooting for a technology that got its start only a few years after Wyatt Earp shot up the OK Corral.
Who's lobbying Arizona or Ohio to pay for this proposal? And who expects Ohio leadership to contribute? I must've missed where Republicans were generally supportive of transit (it helps poor people after all), and they certainly have a history of being against it in Ohio. And I'm curious... if roads are such a great idea, why does it take federal and state government to build them? Where are all the private companies and organizations stepping up?
Nothing is wrong with Megabus, but I could ask that to everyone who would rather drive their cars than take it, couldn't I? Air travel is also subsidized with federal/state dollars. And Megabus can keep fairs lower because those same dollars already built the roads they use. It's interesting how everyone gets to have their hand in the jar when it benefits them or their own preferences, but someone mention rail and everyone craps their pants about how terribly expensive, wasteful and selfish it is.
I support sensible solutions too, which is why spending almost all of the federal transportation budget on roads makes no sense. I would love a hyperloop or some other alternative to a train, bus or car, but that's not happening anytime soon. Driverless cars? Please. Talk about lowering the bar.
What does Chicago's economy have to do with anything? Economies go up and down.
A) yes and b) you can take lyft if you don't like uber, or look into private buses popping up. Or just stay home and not do anything during those times when you can't depend on the state to drop you off somewhere. Your choice.
So why do the government make us pay for the federal highway? Why can't private sector build the roads and you pay per use? You can stay home or pay a hell lot more to path your own road way to wherever you go right? That's socialism when state are using our tax to build something for everyone to use in my opinion and I am sure you agree. We should not depend on state to put a path for you to go, your choice.
Not sure what happened to my first post I responded to this but....
You're forcing people to buy cars by only building that type of infrastructure. There are plenty of people who can't afford a car today, but there are also plenty of people who would not buy one if they didn't have to because of forced circumstances. If I lived in Columbus again, I would very likely have to get a car because alternatives are pretty bad. There is car sharing, but it wouldn't make sense to do that every single day for work, and COTA's service is mixed at best. That's the situation in most American cities. I personally hate having to rely on a car, and I don't particularly like driving. You obviously prefer driving even if you don't right now or you wouldn't be arguing so hard for no other alternatives to be invested in, regardless if they are supported by the state or not. But why should your preference supersede mine or those like mine?
Driverless cars, again, don't solve any issues outside of safety. The infrastructure for roads would still have to be built and maintained, requiring the same subsidization that all pro-car people seem to be totally okay with while maligning significantly smaller levels for transit. And it still requires everyone to buy one and it's still everyone driving around alone. At the very least, riding a train doesn't require every single person to buy their own locomotive for the privilege. You talk about fair while telling everyone they need to conform to a single, expensive choice. This is not a television, this is a car.
The permanence of rail lines is what creates the related development. Based on studies done, buses have far less related economic impact because their routes could much more easily change. It's like comparing the economic impact of a Wal-Mart and 1000-spot surface parking lot in the exurbs vs. a 25 story mixed-use building in a downtown. You have a huge difference between the subsidization of infrastructure involved as well as the actual tax value returned to the location it's in. Buses and cars can't provide the same return as a train. If the goal is to actually create a system that is able to absorb more of its costs, than cheerleading for the personal car is an awful thing to do and it completely undermines the argument that it's a waste of money.
I don't understand the age argument of trains. Since when are cars a recent invention? So instead of relying on 1850s technology (because they apparently had bullet trains pre-Civil War), you're instead rooting for a technology that got its start only a few years after Wyatt Earp shot up the OK Corral.
Who's lobbying Arizona or Ohio to pay for this proposal? And who expects Ohio leadership to contribute? I must've missed where Republicans were generally supportive of transit (it helps poor people after all), and they certainly have a history of being against it in Ohio. And I'm curious... if roads are such a great idea, why does it take federal and state government to build them? Where are all the private companies and organizations stepping up?
Nothing is wrong with Megabus, but I could ask that to everyone who would rather drive their cars than take it, couldn't I? Air travel is also subsidized with federal/state dollars. And Megabus can keep fairs lower because those same dollars already built the roads they use. It's interesting how everyone gets to have their hand in the jar when it benefits them or their own preferences, but someone mention rail and everyone craps their pants about how terribly expensive, wasteful and selfish it is.
I support sensible solutions too, which is why spending almost all of the federal transportation budget on roads makes no sense. I would love a hyperloop or some other alternative to a train, bus or car, but that's not happening anytime soon. Driverless cars? Please. Talk about lowering the bar.
What does Chicago's economy have to do with anything? Economies go up and down.
And high speed rail does not only serve the purpose of passengers only, they can run transportation of goods as well, which means less congestion in highway with semi-trucks and most likely faster delivery. It's just good investment when a country continue to upgrade its infrastructure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
