Our City Online

Messageboard - Transportation

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Columbus-Chicago Passenger Rail

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Transportation Columbus-Chicago Passenger Rail

  • This topic has 247 replies, 65 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by SteveSteve.
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 248 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #507308

    Molly
    Member

    I would give anything to have this rail line. Seriously, were can I sign up to get involved?

    #507309

    NEOBuckeye
    Participant

    ChrisSunami said:
    That would be great! And although the 3C rail sounds more like a natural starting place, the longer route might actually be the more useful/appealing one, since it’s a much more taxing and expensive drive.

    I honestly think if we get ONE major line up and running, people will see the benefit, the cities and stops in between will see a substantial economic benefit, and then it will be difficult for critics (and stubborn governors) to deny that this is the way to go. Other lines could then soon follow.

    One thing I am curious about in this proposal, however, is the absence of a direct line between Indianapolis and Columbus. The alternate line on the map appears to run from Indianapolis to Cincinnati. Is there no Indianapolis-Dayton-Columbus connection that could work in this plan? It seems to me that a Chicago-Indianapolis-Dayton-Columbus-Pittsburgh line would reach substantially more people and a larger market in Indy, and achieve a “bigger bang effect” overall than a Chicago-Columbus line that happens to run through Ft. Wayne and Lima would achieve. Plus it wouldn’t make for all that much difference in running time.

    #507310

    NEOBuckeye
    Participant

    duplicate post… self-delete

    #507311

    TaraK
    Participant

    If this existed, I would buy tickets right now. I’m trying to plan a trip to Chicago for next month and facing the drive vs. fly hassle. I hate to spend the money for two airfare tickets, but I loathe long drives more than anything, plus the parking issues.

    Additionally, I think the added value of useable time would appeal to a lot of people that would otherwise drive. Not only will their travel be (what, 40% or so?) shorter than before, but the time can be used for reading, working, etc. — not staring at a highway.

    As others said, it seems like a no-brainer that, if implemented, people would try it and get on board (PUN!). But seriously, what’s to be against? (Initial costs, sure.)

    #507312
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    TaraK said:
    But seriously, what’s to be against? (Initial costs, sure.)

    Not saying I’m against this, but the objections are usually high initial cost and continued subsidy costs as well as low ridership ( i.e. ridership is usually significantly less than predicted ).

    #507313
    MichaelC
    MichaelC
    Participant

    I would have purchased a few tickets already, as well. Am planning a trip to Chicago next week. I’d rather drive, but don’t want to deal with the hassle of having a car or wasting time driving when I could be reading about how some people think the cost of rail is prohibitive but the cost of repaving roads regularly is okay.

    #507314

    bman
    Participant

    rus said:
    Not saying I’m against this, but the objections are usually high initial cost and continued subsidy costs as well as low ridership ( i.e. ridership is usually significantly less than predicted ).

    You are a brave man Rus … continue to discuss rail with the peeps around here.

    #507315

    NEOBuckeye
    Participant

    rus said:
    Not saying I’m against this, but the objections are usually high initial cost and continued subsidy costs as well as low ridership ( i.e. ridership is usually significantly less than predicted ).

    Highways and airlines are actually heavily subsidized by the federal government. If the feds stopped propping up airlines today, most would completely shut down within days as few people or businesses could afford to buy flight tickets at actual price.

    As for highways, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Eisenhower is the sole reason we have our Interstate highway system today. We take it for granted now, but the reality is that many states fiercely fought Ike then over cost and implementation. It was hardly a done deal overnight.

    These are probably the most overlooked considerations regarding rail. We can and should get a high speed rail network done on the same scale as the Interstate System, but that will likely mean shifting our priorities and policies around on federal subsidies.

    Personally, I don’t think we can or will tear down our Interstate highways anytime soon, though some innerbelts will certainly come down over the next decade or two. But the days of cheap, short-distance (<400 miles) domestic flights are numbered. That might not be so big of a deal, however, when a train can effectively get you from Columbus to New York or Chicago within the same or a shorter time frame, particularly once you take airport processing (e.g. baggage, security checks, etc.) and similar hassles into consideration.

    #507316

    geoyui
    Participant

    NEOBuckeye said:

    One thing I am curious about in this proposal, however, is the absence of a direct line between Indianapolis and Columbus. The alternate line on the map appears to run from Indianapolis to Cincinnati. Is there no Indianapolis-Dayton-Columbus connection that could work in this plan? It seems to me that a Chicago-Indianapolis-Dayton-Columbus-Pittsburgh line would reach substantially more people and a larger market in Indy, and achieve a “bigger bang effect” overall than a Chicago-Columbus line that happens to run through Ft. Wayne and Lima would achieve. Plus it wouldn’t make for all that much difference in running time.

    I completely agree. Nothing against Fort Wayne, but Pitt – Cbus – Indy – Chicago sounds much more appealing from all levels.

    #507317

    columbusmike
    Participant

    dubdave00 said:
    I’m interested… Are any of those studies public anywhere?

    It’s part of the Ohio Hub plan …. read more here:
    http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio%20Hub/Website/ordc/index.html

    #507318

    MRipley
    Participant

    NEOBuckeye said:
    That might not be so big of a deal, however, when a train can effectively get you from Columbus to New York or Chicago within the same or a shorter time frame, particularly once you take airport processing (e.g. baggage, security checks, etc.) and similar hassles into consideration.

    So you don’t think that the same type of security screening will be required for high-volume passenger rail if it were to become popular?

    #507319

    columbusmike
    Participant

    geoyui said:
    I completely agree. Nothing against Fort Wayne, but Pitt – Cbus – Indy – Chicago sounds much more appealing from all levels.

    In general, I believe the reason that route is preferred is because 1) the major cities along that route are fully on-board and have already done some initial work (such as preparing stations, etc). 2) That route is relatively flat and straight, requiring very little track upgrades to obtain 110mph….just the purchasing of tilting cars.

    #507320

    columbusmike
    Participant

    MRipley said:
    So you don’t think that the same type of security screening will be required for high-volume passenger rail if it were to become popular?

    I would hope not. The dangers of extremely small explosives on a highly-pressurized aircraft vs a train are very different.

    #507321

    Graybeak
    Participant

    I think the more important question is:
    If a train leaves Chicago traveling east at 110 miles per hour towards Cleveland at 8:37 am, and another train leaves Cleveland towards Chicago at 110 miles per hour, at what point will they arrive in Ft. Wayne to meet for lunch?

    #507322
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    columbusmike said:
    I would hope not. The dangers of extremely small explosives on a highly-pressurized aircraft vs a train are very different.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 248 total)

The forum ‘Transportation’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: