Any updates on the potential Columbus-Chicago high speed rail connection? (Cleveland: lease, purchase)

[candle16]

Originally Posted by PerryMason614

Who cares? Some of the old Roman roads are still in use today. What we build today will likely be relevant for 2000 years.

But not your leftist choo-choo. Nobody wants to be crammed like sardines into a government train with a bunch of smelly, stinky poor people. Period, end of discussion.

It may be relevant for 2000 years as a historic site, I highly doubt it will last more than 50 years the way our infrastructure is crumpling right now even the ones with half-hearted maintenance because of our federal/state budget shortfall.

[candle16]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

So you've never ridden on any actual passenger rail, have you. I think you're confusing the 1970s Queens, NY subway with modern rail and it's pretty silly.

And I love the unabashed classism you promote.

The Taiwan High Speed Rail travels at 260 km per hour, about 161 miles per hour. So think about getting to Cincy within 45 mins or Cleveland under an hour without waiting on traffic float. Granted you will have to find a ride once you arrive at the station.

The only concern I have is the cost-effective on passenger, the fare will have to be significantly lower than gas in order to persuade people and without subsidizing at least at the beginning phrase it is hard for baby boomers to switch an old driving habit. The millennials wouldn't be too hard to embrace the concept though.

[Zen_master]

Originally Posted by candle16

The Taiwan High Speed Rail travels at 260 km per hour, about 161 miles per hour. So think about getting to Cincy within 45 mins or Cleveland under an hour without waiting on traffic float. Granted you will have to find a ride once you arrive at the station.

The only concern I have is the cost-effective on passenger, the fare will have to be significantly lower than gas in order to persuade people and without subsidizing at least at the beginning phrase it is hard for baby boomers to switch an old driving habit. The millennials wouldn't be too hard to embrace the concept though.

A reasonable starting point would be to compare the fare to the cost of ownership per mile of a typical vehicle. According to Edmunds, the cost of ownership of a typical family sedan such as the 2015 Honda Accord is ~63 cents per mile in year one and averages about 59 cents/mile over the first five years. Edmunds formula incorporates estimates for depreciation, fuel, taxes and fees, parts and maintenance and so forth assuming mileage of 15,000/yr.

At the most basic level you could multiply the cost per mile by the number of miles with the result being an economic equivalent for what a fare could run. For example, a one-way to Cincinnati would approximate (100 miles * 59 cents/mile) = $59.

In reality, some of these costs of vehicle ownership will be borne by the owner anyway (depreciation, interest expense, yearly fees, etc.) making the $59 estimate probably a little ambitious and one which not many car owners would accept. However, those without other forms of transportation may view it as more acceptable.

Therefore while not necessarily the end-all, the brief exercise above could serve as a ceiling for which the fare cannot exceed. This would be an important input into any feasibility study where you derive gross revenue by (average fare * estimated number of annual passengers). If the powers that be can't operate the system for less than such a fare, the project is essentially dead on arrival.

[jbcmh81]

Why would rail tickets require a cost less than that of gas to be competitive?

[PerryMason614]

Originally Posted by Zen_master

A reasonable starting point would be to compare the fare to the cost of ownership per mile of a typical vehicle. According to Edmunds, the cost of ownership of a typical family sedan such as the 2015 Honda Accord is ~63 cents per mile in year one and averages about 59 cents/mile over the first five years. Edmunds formula incorporates estimates for depreciation, fuel, taxes and fees, parts and maintenance and so forth assuming mileage of 15,000/yr.

At the most basic level you could multiply the cost per mile by the number of miles with the result being an economic equivalent for what a fare could run. For example, a one-way to Cincinnati would approximate (100 miles * 59 cents/mile) = $59.

In reality, some of these costs of vehicle ownership will be borne by the owner anyway (depreciation, interest expense, yearly fees, etc.) making the $59 estimate probably a little ambitious and one which not many car owners would accept. However, those without other forms of transportation may view it as more acceptable.

Therefore while not necessarily the end-all, the brief exercise above could serve as a ceiling for which the fare cannot exceed. This would be an important input into any feasibility study where you derive gross revenue by (average fare * estimated number of annual passengers). If the powers that be can't operate the system for less than such a fare, the project is essentially dead on arrival.

What's the cost of catching tuberculosis or hepatits crammed into a government bus in close quarters with all kinds of stinky, diseased people? Don't laugh. People went out of their way to protect themselves from contagious people back in the old days. Antibiotics are starting to run their course.

[Losfrisco]

Came across this thread and it evoked a conversation I had with a random person many years ago in a bar in Columbus. He was excitedly telling me how "everything goes through Columbus" and so forth, emphasizing how vital a link it is to the region, etc. Then a while ago in these forums, I'm being told how much "access" one has by living in Columbus.

So now I realize Columbus is not even on the Amtrak grid! I can take a train from San Diego all the way to Cleveland or Pittsburgh, but to get Columbus, I need to use something called the "megabus" from Chicago.

[Kamms]

[quote=Losfrisco;42191543]Came across this thread and it evoked a conversation I had with a random person many years ago in a bar in Columbus. He was excitedly telling me how "everything goes through Columbus" and so forth, emphasizing how vital a link it is to the region, etc. Then a while ago in these forums, I'm being told how much "access" one has by living in Columbus.

So now I realize Columbus is not even on the Amtrak grid! I can take a train from San Diego all the way to Cleveland or Pittsburgh, but to get Columbus, I need to use something called the "megabus" from Chicago.[/QUOTE
Columbus is not on the Amtrak grid and it is pushing for a high-speed line no less. Same thing in Cinci with something like 3 trains per week in the overnight early hours. Yep, it's time to spend billions of $ for a high-speed line there as well. Both Cinci and Columbus both want billions more for fantasy light-rail systems when something like less than 20,000/day ride each cities buses.

[chet_kinkaid]

Amtrak is losing money..only the boshwash corridor is breaking even if that..having said that The people of greater columbus are paying taxes to support Amtrak..the next service in ohio better be to link Columbus to Amtrak..It's by far the largest csa without service..Columbus to Pittsburgh on to ny..and west to chicago

[jbcmh81]

[quote=Kamms;42192937]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

Came across this thread and it evoked a conversation I had with a random person many years ago in a bar in Columbus. He was excitedly telling me how "everything goes through Columbus" and so forth, emphasizing how vital a link it is to the region, etc. Then a while ago in these forums, I'm being told how much "access" one has by living in Columbus.

So now I realize Columbus is not even on the Amtrak grid! I can take a train from San Diego all the way to Cleveland or Pittsburgh, but to get Columbus, I need to use something called the "megabus" from Chicago.[/QUOTE
Columbus is not on the Amtrak grid and it is pushing for a high-speed line no less. Same thing in Cinci with something like 3 trains per week in the overnight early hours. Yep, it's time to spend billions of $ for a high-speed line there as well. Both Cinci and Columbus both want billions more for fantasy light-rail systems when something like less than 20,000/day ride each cities buses.

First of all, the line referenced in this thread will not be multiple billions in cost. The estimate from the economic impact study was about $1.3 billion. And that money isn't being asked for by Columbus. The cost would be shared between 3 states and the multiple cities that it would run through, along with federal grants. Ohio state government would be unlikely to provide any money given how anti-transit Republicans are.
Second, what does not having Amtrak have to do with anything? Much smaller cities (including those in Ohio) have Amtrak service.
Third, I have seen no cost studies done for light rail systems in Columbus that have associated costs in the billions. Perhaps if we are talking about a pretty widespread and comprehensive system with many lines, but even so, such a system would be decades in development, and such costs would be spread out over many years. It would be no different than how road systems are developed.


And finally, I have a simple question for you and other anti-rail folks that never seems to get directly answered:
Is rail public infrastructure or not? Why or why not?


The answers to this question will have much different realities. For example, if rail IS considered infrastructure, there should be no greater emphasis on it being profitable than we have for roads or sidewalks or bike trails. If it is not infrastructure, why isn't it? What makes it wholly different than a highway or the millions of miles of neighborhood, suburban or rural roads that are lightly travelled?

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by chet_kinkaid

Amtrak is losing money..only the boshwash corridor is breaking even if that..having said that The people of greater columbus are paying taxes to support Amtrak..the next service in ohio better be to link Columbus to Amtrak..It's by far the largest csa without service..Columbus to Pittsburgh on to ny..and west to chicago

Amtrak, for the most part, is severely underfunded. Most of its budget goes into maintaining what already exists. Even in the Bos-Wash corridor, it is still often forced to share lines with freight rather than having dedicated lines of its own that would make service significantly faster and more efficient.

I once road Amtrak from Toledo to eastern PA back in the late 1990s. It took between 12-15 hours for what should have been no more than 7-8. This is because it was a shared line and could never quite reach a decent cruising speed. It is of no wonder that people knock rail when this is the reality. Even so, I had a LOT more room than in a car and airplane, and it was nice to be able to walk around, visit the dining car and enjoy the scenery passing by. If the speed was there, I would consider it easily the superior form of travel.