Do you support High-Speed Rail from Chicago to Cincinnati through Indianapolis? (Columbus: 2014, hotel)

[wh15395]

If Ohio covered at least half of the costs to build and maintain the line between Cincy and Indy, I would be in favor of it. Otherwise, I would just support the line between Chicago and Indy. Indiana wouldn't benefit enough from a rail line to Cincy to justify the costs.

[Serious Conversation]

Originally Posted by wh15395

If Ohio covered at least half of the costs to build and maintain the line between Cincy and Indy, I would be in favor of it. Otherwise, I would just support the line between Chicago and Indy. Indiana wouldn't benefit enough from a rail line to Cincy to justify the costs.

They would be useful, but I doubt either line would be profitable.

[rrah]

Originally Posted by Toxic Toast

Doesn't the "few stops along the way" defeat the purpose of HSR?

That was my thought too.

[rrah]

Originally Posted by OHKID

Yeah, that would be the one improvement I would do on the route. Indiana's two most progressive cities, Bloomington and Columbus, are close enough to the route that they could be included and not slow it down terribly. And you'd get a ton of demand from both cities and to both cities. Right there I think the ridership numbers could really work out well.

The way I see it:
Cincinnati => Hamilton/Oxford OH => Greensburg IN => Columbus IN => Bloomington IN => Indianapolis => Lafayette => Merrillville/Gary/NW Indiana => Chicago. No other stops.

You're right you won't be getting many users from places like Batesville. No point in even having a stop.

I think this kind of route is called Greyhound (and I live in B-ton and would love to have a quick means of getting to Chicago to see family and friends).

[Serious Conversation]

Originally Posted by rrah

I think this kind of route is called Greyhound (and I live in B-ton and would love to have a quick means of getting to Chicago to see family and friends).

Those stops are virtually every city along the route.

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by Emigrations

They would be useful, but I doubt either line would be profitable.

There's no such thing as profitable public transportation.

[Allergyvictim]

Obama proposed to build high speed trains like Europe in his 2008 campaign, and all vanished after that
High speed trains project is pretty much like stem cells researches to me

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by grmasterb

There's no such thing as profitable public transportation.

Profit is definitely a loaded term. We don't ask I-74 to return a profit, but we do want it to be worth the investment in the trade and development that comes from using our tax dollars to build and maintain it. It's fair to hold rail projects to the same standard so long as the development that comes with them is fairly attributed to them (a lot of the development will happen while an approved project is in the planning stages or under construction, and biased sources won't count this,) I think with limited scope this project should easily pass that.

[Serious Conversation]

Originally Posted by grmasterb

There's no such thing as profitable public transportation.

Would the train to Cincy even be viable? The train to Chicago may not be profitable, but it would probably at least make up a large enough portion of its own costs to be viable. The train to Cincy - I don't think so.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Emigrations

Would the train to Cincy even be viable? The train to Chicago may not be profitable, but it would probably at least make up a large enough portion of its own costs to be viable. The train to Cincy - I don't think so.

As I said earlier in the thread, it's viable from a Cincinnati-Chicago commuting perspective, but not Indy-Cincy at the moment. Including both Indianapolis and Cincinnati makes the project much more worthwhile for Chicago (it would serve more people and businesses than a Chicago-St. Louis line). Adding the line to Cincinnati will make intercity trade between the cities quickly rise, however.