Do you support High-Speed Rail from Chicago to Cincinnati through Indianapolis? (Boston: 2015, costs)

[rrtechno]

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.

Lots of talk on here concerning HSR TO Cincinnati being a waste from a leisure standpoint (as in, "Why in the world would enough people want to go to Cincinnati?") but not much looking at it as HSR FROM Cincinnati.

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by rrtechno

Lots of talk on here concerning HSR TO Cincinnati being a waste from a leisure standpoint (as in, "Why in the world would enough people want to go to Cincinnati?") but not much looking at it as HSR FROM Cincinnati.

The takeaway shouldn't be "why in the world would people want to go to Cincinnati". The takeaway should be "I wish Cincinnati had better transit to make riding a train there a legit option."

Cincinnati could be the most cultured and entertaining city in the lower midwest, I still won't take a train there if I need a car to get around once I am there.

[rrah]

High speed rail is unlikely to happen. Nationally Amtrak saw increases in ridership, except for the Indiana line. The only way high speed rail might work is if it avoided all of the stops people are proposing in this thread. All of the stops are what prevents people from riding in my opinion. One needs to make it faster and more convenient than driving. That's not the case with multiple stops.

Just announced in the last few days:

Ridership drop another blow for Indiana rail line - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

[kwk337]

I'd pay extra just to not have to drive up godforsaken I-65 between Indy and Chicago. 74 to Cincinnati doesn't seem like such a big deal.

Used to take the Megabus from Madison, WI, to Minneapolis. It was as fast as any train, perfectly comfortable, had free wi-fi, and seemed safe. The nearest Amtrak line was from Columbus, WI (20 miles from Madison), took longer than the Megabus and cost about $100 round-trip. (Megabus tickets, booked at least two weeks in advance, usually set me back about 20 bucks round-trip for a 4 1/2 ride each way.)

As enjoyable as riding a train can be, Amtrak definitely doesn't make things easy. The schedules have to take too much into account. The Cardinal leaves Indy for Chicago at 6 AM and brings you back just before midnight. Those hours just suck. And Indianapolis Union Station isn't really a train station anymore. It's a tacky luxury hotel. Not like there's anywhere cool or safe to hang out around Union Station while you're waiting on your train at 5:30 AM.

Durham, NC, has an awesome little refurbished train station, with regular local trains that leave for the major Piedmont cities at better hours than 6 AM. Also multiple times a day. The new local North Carolina trains are spiffy, a lot cleaner than the work-horse Amtrak trains that run on the East Coast. You see a lot of people riding from Durham over to Greensboro and Raleigh (a quick trip and so much more relaxing and interesting than driving on the interstates around there.)

Amtrak might (*might*) see ridership on the Indiana line go up if it brought in a double-decker train with an observation car, like they have on trains out West and on the City of New Orleans.

Why isn't there a rail line between Indy and Louisville, or Cincy and Louisville? Louisville went from being a major railroad hub to having zero (0) passenger service.

[SWOH]

New article:

On Track

[ColdAilment]

Originally Posted by Toxic Toast

I might come back and vote in the poll. As it is now, I would lean no, because of the two part nature of the poll.

HSR between Indy and Chicago, yes, I would be in favor. Not only would I be in favor, I would probably use it multiple times a year.

HSR between Indy and Cincinnati; this is where you have to sell the idea that it is good for the region. Maybe it is; but I can not imagine any scenario in which I would want to take a train to Cincinnati.

Except Cincinnati is already much closer to Indy than is Chicago, but still far enough away that the idea of taking a train would be attractive. Of course Chicago being the dominant city of the Midwest would be well served by having a highspeed rail line connecting the smaller and varying Midwest cities to it, like Minneapolis, Detroit, St. Louis, Indy, Cleveland, etc. However, these smaller cities would also likely benefit by being more connected to one another, I really think Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Louisville will continue to grow closer together, sharing more trade between each other. They're still pretty far apart now, but in the next 30 or so years I could see them growing closer together, much like San Antonio and Austin now are.

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by ColdAilment

Except Cincinnati is already much closer to Indy than is Chicago, but still far enough away that the idea of taking a train would be attractive. Of course Chicago being the dominant city of the Midwest would be well served by having a highspeed rail line connecting the smaller and varying Midwest cities to it, like Minneapolis, Detroit, St. Louis, Indy, Cleveland, etc. However, these smaller cities would also likely benefit by being more connected to one another, I really think Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Louisville will continue to grow closer together, sharing more trade between each other. They're still pretty far apart now, but in the next 30 or so years I could see them growing closer together, much like San Antonio and Austin now are.

Until Cincinnati has an option to get around without a car; I am not taking a train there. I don't care how close it is.

[ColdAilment]

Originally Posted by rrah

High speed rail is unlikely to happen. Nationally Amtrak saw increases in ridership, except for the Indiana line. The only way high speed rail might work is if it avoided all of the stops people are proposing in this thread. All of the stops are what prevents people from riding in my opinion. One needs to make it faster and more convenient than driving. That's not the case with multiple stops.

Just announced in the last few days:

Ridership drop another blow for Indiana rail line - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

I agree. The few stops along the way would only serve a handful of already tiny cities that wouldn't really contribute to ridership. The main principal cities are the important stops. You won't have many people hoping to stop at Greensburg on their way between Indy and Cincy.

[ColdAilment]

Originally Posted by Toxic Toast

Until Cincinnati has an option to get around without a car; I am not taking a train there. I don't care how close it is.

Well, other than Chicago, what Midwest city does allow you to get around practically without a car?

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by ColdAilment

Well, other than Chicago, what Midwest city does allow you to get around practically without a car?

None. That's the point.

I like the idea of rail connecting Indy to Cincinnati. But we have to balance reality with our wet dream fantasies. Right now, rail to Cincinnati is a bad idea. I still need to get a car once I am there. I-74 is not a difficult road to drive on. It is a completely different situation than driving to Chicago. I don't need a car in Chicago. I-65/Skyway/Dan Ryan are all a pain in the rear to travel on. Parking is a hassle in Chicago. It makes sense to not have to drive to Chicago. It makes no sense in the case of Cincinnati.