Any updates on the potential Columbus-Chicago high speed rail connection? (Springfield: rent, insurance)

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by candle16

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.

Many ways to pay for roads without coercion, but really not the topic at hand.

Just think trains are extremely overrated. The future of transit could be so much better than trains, in my opinion.

High-Speed Rail | Downsizing the Federal Government

Worth a read, many sources cited.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by candle16

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.

It's one thing to build national or state highways, but think about every time a subdivision gets built in the suburbs. Every single house literally gets a road built to their driveways on the public dime, and at significantly lower densities that could never possibly pay for the associated costs.

But yeah, the real problem is rail

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by candle16

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.

There are simply far too many roads in the US. Few people really hold this view but hopefully sentiment like this grows: Iowa's DOT Chief Expects the State's Road Network to Shrink - CityLab

The link also specifically mentions that vehicle mileage had peaked in Ohio by 2004. That means that Ohioans are driving less now. It references this article from April: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/04/0...-what-we-have/

[PerryMason614]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

There are simply far too many roads in the US. Few people really hold this view but hopefully sentiment like this grows: Iowa's DOT Chief Expects the State's Road Network to Shrink - CityLab

The link also specifically mentions that vehicle mileage had peaked in Ohio by 2004. That means that Ohioans are driving less now. It references this article from April: Ohio Cities to State DOT: No More New Roads, Just Fix What We Have | Streetsblog USA

Have you driven through Iowa before? They still have dirt and gravel roads in Iowa. There is NOTHING there in most of the state and I mean NOTHING. Of course he would think their road network is too much in a state that is 25% larger than Ohio, with 25% of Ohio's population (3 million). It would be like the population of Columbus spread out over most of Ohio.

But try getting through there on your way to ... anywhere. Those roads are necessary.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by PerryMason614

Have you driven through Iowa before? They still have dirt and gravel roads in Iowa. There is NOTHING there in most of the state and I mean NOTHING. Of course he would think their road network is too much in a state that is 25% larger than Ohio, with 25% of Ohio's population (3 million). It would be like the population of Columbus spread out over most of Ohio.

But try getting through there on your way to ... anywhere. Those roads are necessary.

Does everyone need a subsidized road to their front door out in the exurbs? Why aren't those costs factored in to housing or development costs? Why aren't those residents paying a premium for living out there? Instead, green field development and housing is usually lower to significantly lower in cost. You want transportation to be more solvent, then this scenario can no longer play out as it has. Trains have made convenient scapegoats, but they're not even a tiny portion of what's really wrong.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Many ways to pay for roads without coercion, but really not the topic at hand.

Just think trains are extremely overrated. The future of transit could be so much better than trains, in my opinion.

High-Speed Rail | Downsizing the Federal Government

Worth a read, many sources cited.

The very first paragraph illustrates perfectly how rail has become the dirty word for people who aren't actually interested in transportation financial solvency:

High-speed passenger rail has received increasing interest by policymakers in recent years. President Barack Obama is a strong supporter of high-speed rail, and Congress included $8 billion in high-speed rail funding in the 2009 economic stimulus legislation. Congress appropriated an additional $2.5 billion for 2010, and the president is proposing $1 billion annually in high-speed rail funding over the next several years.

The Brent Spence Bridge replacement in Cincinnati will cost roughly $2.7 billion. ONE bridge in ONE city is almost a quarter of the entire NATIONAL budget for HSR for that entire year, and almost 3x the annual budget proposed in subsequent years. But rail is made into the budget boogeyman. So ridiculous.

[PerryMason614]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Does everyone need a subsidized road to their front door out in the exurbs? Why aren't those costs factored in to housing or development costs? Why aren't those residents paying a premium for living out there? Instead, green field development and housing is usually lower to significantly lower in cost. You want transportation to be more solvent, then this scenario can no longer play out as it has. Trains have made convenient scapegoats, but they're not even a tiny portion of what's really wrong.

I don't want to live in a city. I like the suburbs. It seems to me that I pay plenty in taxes every year that a road shouldn't be too much to ask for.

[candle16]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Many ways to pay for roads without coercion, but really not the topic at hand.

Just think trains are extremely overrated. The future of transit could be so much better than trains, in my opinion.

High-Speed Rail | Downsizing the Federal Government

Worth a read, many sources cited.

Just playing devils advocate, there should be some type of alternative in transportation though. Not saying train or high speed rail in every corner in America but in some part where multiple cities are within proximity can be beneficial. Consider the traffic, airline availability, etc.

[candle16]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

It's one thing to build national or state highways, but think about every time a subdivision gets built in the suburbs. Every single house literally gets a road built to their driveways on the public dime, and at significantly lower densities that could never possibly pay for the associated costs.

But yeah, the real problem is rail

Yes the investment return rate on building roads in a subdivision of 50 homes is low compare to say mass transit in the city.

[candle16]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

There are simply far too many roads in the US. Few people really hold this view but hopefully sentiment like this grows: Iowa's DOT Chief Expects the State's Road Network to Shrink - CityLab

The link also specifically mentions that vehicle mileage had peaked in Ohio by 2004. That means that Ohioans are driving less now. It references this article from April: Ohio Cities to State DOT: No More New Roads, Just Fix What We Have | Streetsblog USA

Also a generational trend. I read about the average age of obtaining driver license is higher than in the 80's.

U.S. Teenagers Are Driving Much Less: 4 Theories About Why