Funding approved for "3C" (Cincy-Cbus-Cle) Rail Line

[The Operator]

Originally Posted by OldRightHander

I need the highways to do my job. That will always be the case, no matter how many trains there are carting people around. The fewer non commercial vehicles on the road, the smoother it is for those of us who have to use the highway and keep a schedule.

I think we're going to see more freight AND more passengers moving to rail.

IMO, eventually just about all long-distance freight is going to go to stack containers, and the trucking industry will be mostly short haul. That may be good or bad in your view. I don't know if you get most of your business as long or short haul. I would assume there would be more short-haul traffic available though if what I predict comes true.

But if the trucking industry adapts, it could mean much better working conditions for truckers in general. Being home more nights, more regular hours, etc.

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by gonelong

That was my first thought. I live North of Dayton, and we have quite a few friends in Columbus and some family in Cincy.

Will there be a direct route from Dayton to Columbus, or will we have to go Dayton->Cincy->Columbus? That's probably kill it for me.

GL

Right now the play is for the line to go from Cincinnati to Columbus through Dayton. So yes, there will likely be a direct route from Dayton to Columbus, if this thing ever gets off the ground.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

The end justifies the means in this case. Now if we can just get the governor(s) to stop tearing down the dams that provide good clean renewable energy.

Assume you're talking about the Klamath. I'm pretty close to this issue through work. There's more to it.

[Falls City Beer]

The US uses rail to ship far more than just about every 1st world nation. This won't change that at all. I doubt this will do anything to offset current interstate use/traffic.

[OldRightHander]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

The US uses rail to ship far more than just about every 1st world nation. This won't change that at all. I doubt this will do anything to offset current interstate use/traffic.

Probably not, but removing a few passenger cars from the interstates can't hurt.

[Betterread]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

The US uses rail to ship far more than just about every 1st world nation. This won't change that at all. I doubt this will do anything to offset current interstate use/traffic.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Trucking is by far the most prominent mode to move freight in this country.
Here is RITA data from 2002:

Trucking continued to dominate the U.S. commercial freight industry in 2002.

Trucking's share of all commercial freight activity in the United States for 2002
Value—63.7 percent
Weight-58.2 percent
Ton-miles—32.1 percent
Trucking, both for-hire and private, continued its dominance of the freight industry in 2002 in value, weight, and ton-miles. From 1993 to 2002, value increased to $6.7 trillion—up from $4.7 trillion. And trucks moved about 58 percent of the total freight tonnage in 2002, up from 54 percent in 1993. During this time period, truck ton-miles grew by 56 percent as rail ton-miles increased by 30 percent and water declined by 7 percent (see table). A decade earlier trucks moved about 26 percent of ton-miles, rail about 27 percent, water about 24 percent and pipeline about 16 percent.

[Kingspoint]

Originally Posted by Rojo

Assume you're talking about the Klamath. I'm pretty close to this issue through work. There's more to it.

That's certainly one of them, but we won't go there in this thread. More than welcome to pm me on it. I'll be civil. Yes. There is a lot to it.

[Kingspoint]

Originally Posted by Betterread

You have no idea what you are talking about. Trucking is by far the most prominent mode to move freight in this country.
Here is RITA data from 2002:

Trucking continued to dominate the U.S. commercial freight industry in 2002.

Trucking's share of all commercial freight activity in the United States for 2002
Value—63.7 percent
Weight-58.2 percent
Ton-miles—32.1 percent
Trucking, both for-hire and private, continued its dominance of the freight industry in 2002 in value, weight, and ton-miles. From 1993 to 2002, value increased to $6.7 trillion—up from $4.7 trillion. And trucks moved about 58 percent of the total freight tonnage in 2002, up from 54 percent in 1993. During this time period, truck ton-miles grew by 56 percent as rail ton-miles increased by 30 percent and water declined by 7 percent (see table). A decade earlier trucks moved about 26 percent of ton-miles, rail about 27 percent, water about 24 percent and pipeline about 16 percent.

All the gas must be left for them and emergency vehicles when push comes to shove. Inventories must move at an efficient pace. People, not so much.

[Kingspoint]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

I doubt this will do anything to offset current interstate use/traffic.

That you have correct.

25 years after Portland began their Light Rail lines, only 1% of "commuters" were using the system. The reasons are because it stinks, it's uncomfortable, it takes too long, it's intimidating (the unruly passengers aren't controlled enough, people have been killed, beaten, stabbed, harrassed, robbed, etc.). Men, for the most part, just won't do it because they like to drive and drive alone. (Kind of hard to stop after work for a beer half way home, or go do something else directly after work, or run an errand after work, unless that errand is right on the Light Rail line, where women have less of a problem with that. They are more efficient than men and do what they have to do at lunch, or they use the time on the train to catch up on paying bills or doing some "necessary" reading.)

But, just a couple of years later, these problems of security are finally being addressed, more rail lines have been added to where there's a huge network now, so it's set up for increased ridership.

There's still one problem. Gas isn't expensive enough to make people get out of their cars. It will be.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

That you have correct.

I'm right on the other part too, as counterintuitive as it sounds. The US uses more rail for shipping purposes than any other first world country. I think some huffy poster upthread failed to read my post correctly: I didn't say that rail shipped MORE than trucks, I said the US uses rail for shipping more than France or Germany or any other developed nation.

Nevertheless, the rail lines in this country are in atrocious shape and need an overhaul.

[Falls City Beer]

Beyond the price of gas, Americans will have make all kinds of cultural and sociological changes before rail takes root.

What's the old joke? One woman says to the other, "I take the bus to work nowadays."

The other woman: "Have things gotten *that* bad?"

Americans are concerned with status above any other "value" or benefit to their lives or the lives of others.

[oneupper]

Originally Posted by Rojo

Half-baked is right. California and Florida are getting full-blown, dedicated high-speed rail.

We are? (Florida)

[paintmered]

Originally Posted by oneupper

We are? (Florida)

Yes, between Tampa and Orlando.

The difference with the true high speed plans and Ohio is that Ohio is starting from scratch. Florida is upgrading an existing rail line.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

Beyond the price of gas, Americans will have make all kinds of cultural and sociological changes before rail takes root.

Mass transit is pointless without density. We'd really need to scrap the suburban sprawl model and move toward New Urbanism.

[oneupper]

Originally Posted by paintmered

Yes, between Tampa and Orlando.

The difference with the true high speed plans and Ohio is that Ohio is starting from scratch. Florida is upgrading an existing rail line.

Thx. I-4 is not a fun drive. Maybe Orlando to Miami later, yes?