This morning it is being reported that Uncle Sam is giving $400 million to Ohio to create passenger service along the 3C corridor (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati). Other regions around the country will be getting similar aid. Ohio is going to have to pony up another $117 million as there share of the project plus annual maintenance costs estimated to be $17 million. All this at a time when neither the Feds nor our state has the money for doing something so frivolous. What we are going to be getting is a joke. This is not going to be a high speed rail line. It is being called medium speed service. They expect the trains to AVERAGE 40 mph. Apparently, they have a different idea of what constitutes medium speed than most of us.
Although nothing has been announced, there is talk that the ticket price is going to be in the neighborhood of $50. It is so obvious this project is doomed to fail before the first section of rail is upgraded. Even die hard train buffs like me aren’t going to ride these trains when we can drive for about half the cost and get there in less time and have our own transportation available when we get there. People might try it once for the novelty but after that, they will be getting back into their cars.
There’s only two reasons that people would regularly patronize this service. It either has to save them time or save them money. This doesn’t sound like it will do either and this is doomed to become just another big government white elephant. “Fifteen cars and fifteen restless riders, …”. They’ll be lucky to get that many.
Sorry, folks. I accidentally hit the enter key before I typed the body of the post. Usually when I do that, the post isn’t accepted but for some reason, it went through this time.
There’s three major flaws with your original post.
It has nothing to do with model railroading whatsoever.
It’s political.
The IRS 2010 mileage allowance for using a car for business is $.50/mile. This accounts for all costs of operating a car (purchase price, depreciation, maintenance, fuel, etc.). It is roughly 245 miles between Cleveland and Cincinnati, so using the fully allocated method, it will actually cost you around $122 to go from Cleveland to Cincinnati. You would need 3 people in the car to make it cheaper than the train. The big difference train vs. car is that your fare is immediately out of pocket whereas much of the cost of the car has already been paid. Unfortunately, most people just calculate fuel cost in calculating the cost of the trip. Not generally included as an advantage in staying off the highway is not having to deal with traffic.
Florida picked up over 1 billion, that’s with a B, for a train from Tampa to Orlando, with a stop at Disney World… We are spending money like we have it. Can’t imagine it being a financial success. Eventually it will go to Miami, more bucks spent.
There is money for Massachusetts, to go both north and south into Springfield. This is great, assuming:
You are a fan of The Simpsons
You plan to attend the annual Amherst Society show in West Springfield, one of the nation’s largest train shows, which, incidentally, is this weekend. The “stimulus funds” won’t help this year, but, well, now there’s something about model railroading in the post.
At face value I agree with you. I can’t imagine I will be tempted to ride this line. However I will be open minded to a couple of points. To look at a larger picture, if the Ohio line is part of a larger network then it has more merit.
The airlines require greater times to get you from door to door, which makes rail more competitive.
The business person can make use of the travel time doing office work etc.
People mention that there is no infrastructure once you arrive in a city, well I am sure it was the same when airlines started up. The buses and taxis will open up new routes where the customers are.
Finally, airlines, highways, ports? etc are all subsidized by the Federal government. So why not passenger rail? If Federal money wasn’t given to roads who would maintain the highways? they don’t generate a profit, but they do improve your quality of life for getting from point A to point B. Same for airports, the airlines would collapse without the Federal government, airports don’t make a profit but they do improve your quality of life for getting you from point A to B. So why not rail?
I really think that government is missing the real opportunity of real high speed rail, 79mph is not high speed in the 21st century. I heard today that Cincinnati to Cleveland will take 5 hours, I could drive it in about 3. Not good enough in my book.
something these clowns have not figured out. most passenger trains go downtown where most of the buisiness and commercial activity USED to be in cities other than a few like NYC and Chicago. most places you get off the train today, you should walk sideways and try to take the bullet in the shoulder.
we can’t bring back yesterday. i have two photos on the wall where i play with my trains. one is ICRR 4043 when it was the last new passenger engine on that road (early 60’s). it was taken at central station in memphis on it’s first trip north on train number 2.
the other photo is of the same locomotive sitting in the dead line at paducah wrecked and rusting away.
The figure being reported on CNN is $8 billion to be divvied up among 22 different rail projects. That amount probably won’t even pay for the environmental impact studies, defending against lawsuits by NIMBYs and all of the other red tape that’s going to be involved.
The City of Phoenix, Arizona spent something like $2 billion for just 12 miles of commuter rail.
And isn’t that money that is already on the books to begin with?
AACH!! Just more money to spend on paperwork to begin with----[|(]
BTW—FLA and CAL can’t even begin the process of matching the dollars here on these HSR’s when they are having issues just paying their own people? And just how are they gong to do these things?[banghead]
Without getting to deep into politics and maybe starting a flame war, I´d like to add my [2c] worth to this.
The US have a great history of public rail transport and there is no reason, why this history cannot be repeated to a degree, if there is a public will for that. The need is there, maybe not short term, but in the long run, the nation needs to have an alternative means of transport, as the crude oil reserves are getting depleted more and more and the price of gas will reach consumer “unfriendly” regions.
In Germany, the 1960´s and 1970´s also saw a decline of public rail transport, as a lot of cities decided to substitute their street cars with buses. Consequently, the number of passengers declined rapidly. Starting in the 1990´s, that trend was reversed by investing into trains again. There are more people using public transport than ever before! It is much faster and a lot cheaper.
In Germany, we do not debate Aunt Angie´s spending on public transport. OK, you cannot compare the US with Germany. If the US had the German density of population, then there would be 2.2 billion US citizens! But there are certainly some regions where public rail transport is viable.
Personally, I´d rather see my tax money at work as a train, than to let it stay in the pockets of our “politnicks”.
Fellas, this is an interesting discussion, but it is off topic. Over at trainsmagazine forums, next door, they have several active threads you can join where the this particular subject matter is more relevant to the real world.