Will you take high speed trains to go to Chicago when they are finished? (Columbus: how much, find a job)

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Mplsite

The downfall is that once you get to Columbus you still won't have any great mass transit to get around the city: at least there's that new circulator I saw and I was surprised that they even had maps of the route posted at each stop. Of course, if my parents move by 2020 this HSR line will be years too late for many people including myself.

You've raised similar points countless times. You do realize that development is not actually centered around you and your family, right?

I'm also wondering why it's such a concern for you when you don't live in either city in question and don't plan on moving back.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by ohioaninsc

Just one of the many wrong moves the idiotic governor has made...there is no reason the 3Cs shouldnt' be connected by high speed rail to each other and to places like Chicago. Yes i'd go see my stepsister much more often in Chicago if I could hop on high speed rail. I hate flying and the drive is too much on my older car.

Take the Megabus. No High Speed Lines are going to built between Columbus, OH and Chicago; too expensive to build, maintain and, of course, subsidize. Not sure what status is on the Chicago-St. Louis line but that too will be a money pit, if it's completed.

There are only a couple of places where a need exists; for example, the I-95 corridor, Washington-Boston where Amtrak provides Acela service.

Amtrak provides sketchy service now so the cost of improving on what it already cannot provide + the implementation of ''high-speed'' service between midwest cities and a Chicago hub, is not financially viable.

Trust me, I'm a rail fan and use Amtrak between Philly-NY, Washington etc.; longer distances outside the east coast is risky. Even the WASH-BOSTON Amtrak service can be unreliable.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by ohioaninsc

Just one of the many wrong moves the idiotic governor has made...there is no reason the 3Cs shouldnt' be connected by high speed rail to each other and to places like Chicago. Yes i'd go see my stepsister much more often in Chicago if I could hop on high speed rail. I hate flying and the drive is too much on my older car.

Another option is renting a car. Rates are not high in general and on weekends in particular.

[IDtheftV]

Originally Posted by ohioaninsc

... there is no reason the 3Cs shouldnt' be connected by high speed rail to each other and to places like Chicago. ....

There is no reason other than the fact that it would cost many tens of billions of dollars for something that people might get on once "just to try it" and then continue to use the far superior option of driving a car.

I wish we still had rails, but we tore them up. GM bought a lot of them up and destroyed them to make a bigger market for automobiles many decades ago, also.

I love the rail system in Japan, but it's not going to happen here.

Note that the bus is a more advanced form of mass transit. It doesn't require a custom-built track, it can be re-routed for utility work, etc. Buses use the more modern, technologically superior form of wheel using the rubber tire.

Countries with high-speed rail pay for it with gasoline taxes. That's why a gallon of gas is closer to $10/gallon in Europe and Japan. People are willing to pay $5/gallon to drive so they can have the train option. I would be willing to pay it to get trains, but it's not going to happen. I got over it.

The people that the news always interviews when the price of gas pops who whine about how it's costing them $75-100 to fill up their massive SUV would really be whiney when the price topped $200. I wouldn't care, but we ( in the US ) can't even get the old 18-cents/gal tax raised to repair the existing roads, let alone nice new ones made of metal that the train requires. It's not gonna happen. Get over it.

Get in your car. It doesn't matter when since you don't have someone else's schedule to keep.

Get in your car. Drive to your destination. A car is door-to-door. When you could use the train to go from a city in Ohio to Chicago or Philadelphia, there were rails running around in the city and from the ex-urbs and it was a convenient walk to a station.

Get in your car. It's not subject to the whim of a ( form of a crony capitalist organization ) labor union who goes on strike just when you want to travel by train.

We trashed all that. Lots of people want to bring it back, but all of them want someone else to pay for it. The only way the people will pay is to have the money forcibly extracted from ( pick your orifice ).

There aren't any governments around that have anything approaching a surplus that could possibly make the investment or guarantee the bonds. It's - not - going - to - happen.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by IDtheftV

There is no reason other than the fact that it would cost many tens of billions of dollars for something that people might get on once "just to try it" and then continue to use the far superior option of driving a car.

I wish we still had rails, but we tore them up. GM bought a lot of them up and destroyed them to make a bigger market for automobiles many decades ago, also.

I love the rail system in Japan, but it's not going to happen here.

Note that the bus is a more advanced form of mass transit. It doesn't require a custom-built track, it can be re-routed for utility work, etc. Buses use the more modern, technologically superior form of wheel using the rubber tire.

Countries with high-speed rail pay for it with gasoline taxes. That's why a gallon of gas is closer to $10/gallon in Europe and Japan. People are willing to pay $5/gallon to drive so they can have the train option. I would be willing to pay it to get trains, but it's not going to happen. I got over it.

The people that the news always interviews when the price of gas pops who whine about how it's costing them $75-100 to fill up their massive SUV would really be whiney when the price topped $200. I wouldn't care, but we ( in the US ) can't even get the old 18-cents/gal tax raised to repair the existing roads, let alone nice new ones made of metal that the train requires. It's not gonna happen. Get over it.

Get in your car. It doesn't matter when since you don't have someone else's schedule to keep.

Get in your car. Drive to your destination. A car is door-to-door. When you could use the train to go from a city in Ohio to Chicago or Philadelphia, there were rails running around in the city and from the ex-urbs and it was a convenient walk to a station.

Get in your car. It's not subject to the whim of a ( form of a crony capitalist organization ) labor union who goes on strike just when you want to travel by train.

We trashed all that. Lots of people want to bring it back, but all of them want someone else to pay for it. The only way the people will pay is to have the money forcibly extracted from ( pick your orifice ).

There aren't any governments around that have anything approaching a surplus that could possibly make the investment or guarantee the bonds. It's - not - going - to - happen.

What car? I, along with something like 10% of Ohio residents of driving age, don't have a driver's license.

If it were easier to live without a car in Ohio, I suspect more people would ditch their cars, (or, at least use them less) but that goes beyond the 3C rail corridor debate.

[jbcmh81]

[quote]

Originally Posted by IDtheftV

There is no reason other than the fact that it would
cost many tens of billions of dollars for something that people might get on
once "just to try it" and then continue to use the far superior option of
driving a car.

What will cost tens of billions? An Ohio system would not cost anywhere near $10 billion, let alone multiple tens of billions.

I wish we still had rails, but we tore them up. GM bought a lot of them up and
destroyed them to make a bigger market for automobiles many decades ago, also.

That's actually largely an urban myth.

I love the rail system in Japan, but it's not going to happen here.

It can, but people like yourself don't support it. If you like rail and wish the US had it, I'm really not sure why you wouldn't want to invest in it.

Note that the bus is a more advanced form of mass transit. It doesn't require a
custom-built track, it can be re-routed for utility work, etc. Buses use the
more modern, technologically superior form of wheel using the rubber tire.

First, a bus is newer, but not necessarily more advanced. HSR is more advanced than the bus, easily. Second, buses absolutely require a custom-built track. They're called roads, and they're even more subsidized than rail. Finally, rail can also be re-routed for utility work.

Countries with high-speed rail pay for it with gasoline taxes. That's why a
gallon of gas is closer to $10/gallon in Europe and Japan. People are willing
to pay $5/gallon to drive so they can have the train option. I would be willing
to pay it to get trains, but it's not going to happen. I got over it.

No, it's because it has to be entirely imported. There are no oil reserves in these areas. It's supply and demand. There is far less car culture there for a reason.

The people that the news always interviews when the price of gas pops who
whine about how it's costing them $75-100 to fill up their massive SUV would
really be whiney when the price topped $200. I wouldn't care, but we ( in the
US ) can't even get the old 18-cents/gal tax raised to repair the existing
roads, let alone nice new ones made of metal that the train requires. It's not
gonna happen. Get over it.

Glad you admit that roads must be subsidized, and it does actually run into the tens of billions.

Get in your car. It doesn't matter when since you don't have someone else's
schedule to keep.

Get in your car. Drive to your destination. A car is door-to-door. When you
could use the train to go from a city in Ohio to Chicago or Philadelphia, there
were rails running around in the city and from the ex-urbs and it was a
convenient walk to a station.

Get in your car. It's not subject to the whim of a ( form of a crony
capitalist organization ) labor union who goes on strike just when you want to
travel by train.

I personally haven't owned a car in more than 3 years, and never want to go back to owning one. They're expensive and a complete hassle. You don't sound like you support rail at all, and don't really seem to understand why anyone would want to not drive.

We trashed all that. Lots of people want to bring it back, but all of them
want someone else to pay for it. The only way the people will pay is to have
the money forcibly extracted from ( pick your orifice ).

You keep repeating this massive double standard as if it's perfectly acceptable. It's not.

There aren't any governments around that have anything approaching a surplus
that could possibly make the investment or guarantee the bonds. It's - not -
going - to - happen.

The proposed Columbus-Chicago line would be paid for through a combination of federal funds, private investment, as well as investment by the cities it would pass through. It wouldn't have to be all paid for by a single entity. How do highways and roads get built? The federal highway fund will go bankrupt in August without Congressional intervention. Roads don't pay for themselves whatsoever. Stop supporting a broken system.

[IDtheftV]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

What will cost tens of billions? An Ohio system would not cost anywhere near $10 billion, let alone multiple tens of billions.

Well then, you haven't been paying much attention to the cost of HSR in other countries.

You keep assuming that I don't support HSR, but I do.

I realize that people like you are forced to pay for roads. I WANT the gas tax to increase to end the subsidy. I resent forcing people like you to pay for roads. It's a lying sneaky thing to do. I'd be happy to see some toll roads, but that's a topic drift.

Further, I would support European-size gas taxes to fund HSR. I'm just stating that the public won't support it.

Building out a decent rail network would create jobs and ( for the neocons ) bolster national defense.

You are wrong about Euro gas prices. There is a world market price and they pay the same as us. The price they pay at the pump is a reflection of the cost of their trains. It's fair and a better model than ours.

When I lived in the city I used the bus and rode my bike.

I just support honest arguments. HSR is hugely expensive, but worth it. I resent people lying about the cost.

I also don't want to see such a huge push to frack for oil and gas. I'm for saving it. I resent people lying about water risks and fake earthquake risks.

I also resent frack supporters telling us that the US is going to be a net oil exporter. They need to do the math. The only way to achieve energy independence is to tap the largest energy supply we have - the ability to conserve.

Back on topic; a new HSR system would provide other economic benefits as private money develops a new infrastructure around stations.

Such lines should only be funded by fuel taxes. Ticket revenue will only be a fraction. Prices should be set to maximize the use. Gas taxes should be set to eliminate subsidies.

People shouldn't be able to afford to commute in 6000 lb SUVs.

Oh and BTW; there is no comparison between the cost of temporary rerouting of rail vs bus. Saying it's no big deal is a disingenuous lie also.

Just be honest and upfront with the costs and sources of funding. That's all I ask.

[jbcmh81]

[quote]

Originally Posted by IDtheftV

Well then, you haven't been paying much attention to
the cost of HSR in other countries.

What does the cost of HSR in other nations have to do with a system in Ohio? Different areas face different challenges. In California, for example, HSR systems are costing more than expected due to difficult terrain and because they have to build for frequent seismic activity. Ohio is mostly flat and without significant geological hazards.

You keep assuming that I don't support HSR, but I do.

I'm going by your own statements, which would contradict that.

I realize that people like you are forced to pay for roads. I WANT the gas
tax to increase to end the subsidy. I resent forcing people like you to pay for
roads. It's a lying sneaky thing to do. I'd be happy to see some toll roads,
but that's a topic drift.

I don't resent it. The problem is not necessarily that roads are subsidized. Even people who don't drive still benefit from the road system in many ways. The problem is that there are probably too many roads, especially in areas that can't support paying for them, such as their proliferation in low-density suburban areas. The gas tax obviously doesn't cover the costs, but I can see problems with just raising it also. For example, the higher the cost, the less people drive, and you end up with diminishing returns. The answer is that we need to get away strictly from roads and start including more alternatives that at least have a lower rate of subsidy, if not at least some potential to make money back.

Further, I would support European-size gas taxes to fund HSR. I'm just stating
that the public won't support it.

Of course not, because they obviously won't see the benefit of a system they don't think they would use. You have to get people used to the idea gradually. It's not like Europe where it's been about the same the whole time. The US has been massively car dependent for generations. It's clearly not working out. You said in your other posts that people would just ride it once and never again, but that's really not what studies show. Just the opposite. But they can't try what doesn't exist.

Building out a decent rail network would create jobs and ( for the neocons )
bolster national defense.

But you just said it was too expensive.

You are wrong about Euro gas prices. There is a world market price and they
pay the same as us. The price they pay at the pump is a reflection of the cost
of their trains. It's fair and a better model than ours.

I know taxes on gas there are high. I'm saying that there's more to the story than that, and it's not just going to maintaining rail systems.

I just support honest arguments. HSR is hugely expensive, but worth it. I
resent people lying about the cost.

If it's worth it, why did you say in your last post that the cost was prohibitive and driving is perfectly easy to do without it? You seem to be changing your story.

I also don't want to see such a huge push to frack for oil and gas. I'm for
saving it. I resent people lying about water risks and fake earthquake
risks.

What does this have to do with rail?

I also resent frack supporters telling us that the US is going to be a net oil
exporter. They need to do the math. The only way to achieve energy
independence is to tap the largest energy supply we have - the ability to
conserve.

Conservation without any alternatives to supply power needs is economic suicide. Not to mention that, when it comes to transit, a system that requires less oil/gas is simply not in place.

Such lines should only be funded by fuel taxes. Ticket revenue will only be a
fraction. Prices should be set to maximize the use. Gas taxes should be set to
eliminate subsidies.

That's all well and good, but how do you raise taxes so much that it forces alternative transit usage without first having an alternative transit system in existence? And how do you maintain the existing road structure if those higher taxes significantly reduce driving, and therefore, gas tax income? At best, it would lead to stagnation.

People shouldn't be able to afford to commute in 6000 lb SUVs.

If they're willing to pay for the gas, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't.

Oh and BTW; there is no comparison between the cost of temporary rerouting of
rail vs bus. Saying it's no big deal is a disingenuous lie also.

You didn't make a distinction as to the ease of rerouting. I didn't say it was "no big deal". I only said it was also possible, which it is.

Just be honest and upfront with the costs and sources of funding. That's all I
ask.

That really goes both ways, and nowhere have I been dishonest.

[Kamms]

Any midwest high-speed train lines will be a taxpayer money pit, even worse than the current Amtrak.

[IDtheftV]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

What does the cost of HSR in other nations have to do with a system in Ohio?

HSR has to be seriously grade-separated. Even in the countryside, to be safe, it has to be removed from all other things. That's a big expense.

It also has to be extremely smooth and level and stable. I don't know what percent of the cost of the Shinkansen build in Japan has to do with seismic protection and what percent is due to just being high speed rail and what percent is due to just the tracks and electricity. Do you?

Slow, stupid, light rail ends up costing over $100k/foot in the city.

My point is that I don't believe people who say it isn't expensive. I've seen how expensive non-HSR is and need more convincing that it isn't a factor of 10x or 20x or whatever more.

What did it cost to build the TGV ( Train à Grande Vitesse )? They don't have earthquakes to worry about.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I'm going by your own statements, which would contradict that.

It is my fault for not being clear. I think that it's not going to happen because not enough people will be willing to foot the bill and I'm not for forcing an unwilling majority to pay for it.

I think we are farthest apart in what we believe the costs will be.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

You said in your other posts that people would just ride it once and never again, but that's really not what studies show. Just the opposite.

I'd like to see these studies.

I'm not talking about what people promise they'll do but what they have done with existing systems.

The closest thing I can see is light rail, which, unlike HSR, I'm totally against ( but that's also O-T ).

Maybe I'm just uninformed, but the only example I've seen is New Mexico's Railrunner where the main users are government workers who live in Albuquerque and only pay about 1/5th the cost of their butt in a seat via ticket prices. When the train was first put in, lotsa people rode it to try it out, but found it inconvenient and more expensive for large groups than driving. It has no funding source.

That's why I like a fuel tax vs. congressional whim.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

If it's worth it, why did you say in your last post that the cost was prohibitive and driving is perfectly easy to do without it? You seem to be changing your story.

No, again, I'm just not being clear. It would be worth it to me, but for most people, an automobile is a better choice. If it's a better choice, then they won't vote to pay for the thing that they won't use.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Conservation without any alternatives to supply power needs is economic suicide.

I was referring to reducing our oil imports. Our biggest supply is conservation rather than new oil deposits. Again, sorry for being unclear. You can increase "supply" of power by either increasing inputs or decreasing the consumption. Not using oil is the same as producing more of it.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

That's all well and good, but how do you raise taxes so much that it forces alternative transit usage without first having an alternative transit system in existence?

You have already seen it happen. When the price of gasoline popped up past $4/gallon in 2007, the busses I rode started filling up. I couldn't count on having a seat for my backpack and newspaper.

If it sounded like I was thinking that the tax should just pop up $5/gallon, again, sorry.

Adding a nickel per month to Fed and State taxes ( 2.5 cents each ) ( or whatever small increment ) would cause less of a shock to prices than has already been experienced due to swings in market prices. If the new money was only used for improving roads and building out more mass transit, over the course of a decade you could get your lines put in.

Just how long were you thinking that it would take to greatly improve both mass and high-speed transit? I certainly don't think it could happen in just a few years and dumping a bunch of new money at the problem would only cause more waste.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

If they're willing to pay for the gas, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't.

I do. Even with our increased oil production of late, more than half our oil comes from imports that directly benefit people that want to see us come to harm.

If the price was worked higher so that filling the tank of the 6,000 lb truck cost them $200 then few would decide it was worth it.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

That really goes both ways, and nowhere have I been dishonest.

I wasn't accusing you of being dishonest. Sorry if I gave that impression.

I am accusing people of giving the estimates for the cost of HSR of being dishonest. I'm assuming that you are going by their numbers and aren't making the estimates yourself.

My assumption of dishonesty comes from initial cost estimates of every other recent rail build-out that turn out to be way low. ( Not just rail, but stuff like Boston's Big Dig. ) First there is an estimate and then the machinery is put in motion. Then the real numbers start showing up.

Do you have any happy endings to report?