New Amtrak Routes (Columbus, Cincinnati, Mason: bus, moving, train)

[otterhere]

I'm now looking into two Amtrak trips... One isn't even called a "trip" because it would require an overnight stay in a major city at my own expense before catching another train the next day. The other one requires a four-hour layover in an unmanned station combined with a bus ride (I assume on Greyhound) to catch the next train. Still, I have such an aversion to flying that I may just go for it.

[otterhere]

Originally Posted by Karl Lagos

Sharonville/Cincy is a proposed new stop and somewhere around Dayton.
Cleveland, OH
Cleveland Hopkins Airport (NEW)
Crestline, OH (NEW)
Delaware, OH (NEW)
Columbus, OH (NEW)
Springfield, OH (NEW)
Dayton, OH (NEW)
Sharonville, OH (NEW)
Cincinnati, OH

Meanwhile, Kentucky has only Fulton, Maysville, and Ashland in the extreme west, north, and south of the state (along the Ohio River).

[Karl Lagos]

Originally Posted by otterhere

Meanwhile, Kentucky has only Fulton, Maysville, and Ashland.

The Bourbon trail choo choo is still running last time I checked.

[TheProf]

Originally Posted by Karl Lagos

Look if there was any demand surely 1 airline would have a direct flight between Cincy and Cleveland. And all it takes is one bomb on a train and it becomes just like an airport. Although since it's government they might exempt themselves.

Huh!?

[Karl Lagos]

Originally Posted by TheProf

Huh!?

What?

[james777]

Quote:
Originally Posted by james777
As I read over this again, I see that you say that there is no non-stop airline service between the three Cs. I find that hard to believe, so I searched on Travelocity. Guess what? There is no non-stop airline service between the three Cs!!!! In this capitalist society, if there were any demand, the airlines would provide it. So why are they building this thing? Why are they even thinking of building this boondoggle?

Have they ever done any studies to estimate demand? If there is little to no demand, why don't they spend the money on improving service where there are plenty of riders and the service is lousy? Like in the Northeast Corridor.

Originally Posted by kyle19125

How would they know the demand if it hasn't been provided? Also air travel between the three C's would differ with rail travel. The air travel option provides the opportunity to reach a suburban location minus the amenities most would travel to reach, then requiring in all but one case (CLE) the necessity of renting a car to reach the central core. There's also the time allotment for airport security and lengthy boarding/deboarding processes and checked baggage handling. The rail option provides travel to the city core and minus the need to rent a car if that is your likely destination. Furthermore service in the Northeast Corridor is far from "lousy" with hourly departures much of the day between DC and Boston with few major delays (unlike air travel) at fares well below air travel and comfortable seating with wi-fi along with no security lines/pre-checks and baggage restrictions, or lengthy boarding/deboarding processes.

Well, who knows, there might be demand, but it is going to be a very expensive journey funded by the American taxpayers to find out. Brightline is losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year on its Florida service. They could try an express bus service to see if the trains would get enough riders.

As for the Northeast Corridor, I was being much too nice to describe the service as lousy. Most of the time, it is rotten, and a disgrace to this country. I have been using it frequently for many years and could describe in detail on how bad it is, but I don't want to derail this thread (pun intended).

[46H]

Originally Posted by TheProf

It would only be this slow if we follow American "slow" standards. I'm talking about higher, or high speed rail, which would likely cover this distance in 4, 4.5 hours or, in other words, FASTER than a car...

Sorry to disappoint you.

There is zero justification for high speed rail in the USA mainly due to the cost. Between the political decisions, landowners/nimbys with lawyers, topography, environmental issues, lack of population density, and the already existing network of air travel and highway travel, there is no way to justify HSR.

It is now 15 years into California's attempt at HSR between LA and SF and they are only working on 119 mile section out of 500 miles. They have already spent over $9.8 billion.
"Estimates suggest it will cost between $88 billion and $128 billion to complete the entire system from LA to San Francisco."
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/17/why-...-complete.html

Estimates for the Texas High Speed Rail 240 mile route between Houston and Dallas are now around $30 Billion or $125 Million per mile. After about a decade, there is still no funding and now they are trying to bring in Amtrak to support this money loser.
https://www.enr.com/articles/57000-a...d-rail-project

China's HSR is one of the reasons for the Chinese economy sucking wind due to the enormous debt of $900 BILLION or equivalent to about 5% of China's gross domestic product. Also, unlike the US, China never has to deal with any land ownership or environmental issues about where to site the track. China also has way higher population density vs the USA.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Tra...take-back-seat

There is no funding or need for any new HSR in the USA.

Sorry to disappoint you.

[Karl Lagos]

Originally Posted by 46H

There is zero justification for high speed rail in the USA mainly due to the cost. Between the political decisions, landowners/nimbys with lawyers, topography, environmental issues, lack of population density, and the already existing network of air travel and highway travel, there is no way to justify HSR.

It is now 15 years into California's attempt at HSR between LA and SF and they are only working on 119 mile section out of 500 miles. They have already spent over $9.8 billion.
"Estimates suggest it will cost between $88 billion and $128 billion to complete the entire system from LA to San Francisco."
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/17/why-...-complete.html

Estimates for the Texas High Speed Rail 240 mile route between Houston and Dallas are now around $30 Billion or $125 Million per mile. After about a decade, there is still no funding and now they are trying to bring in Amtrak to support this money loser.
https://www.enr.com/articles/57000-a...d-rail-project

China's HSR is one of the reasons for the Chinese economy sucking wind due to the enormous debt of $900 BILLION or equivalent to about 5% of China's gross domestic product. Also, unlike the US, China never has to deal with any land ownership or environmental issues about where to site the track. China also has way higher population density vs the USA.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Tra...take-back-seat

There is no funding or need for any new HSR in the USA.

Sorry to disappoint you.

That Cali scam is something else. It might not ever carry 1 passenger. It was a scam from the outset to move real esate around to the right donors, kickbacks etc. The Homeless NGO Industrial Complex is also a scam there.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by Karl Lagos

Look if there was any demand surely 1 airline would have a direct flight between Cincy and Cleveland.

I agree that there is not sufficient demand from Brook Park, OH to Boone County, Kentucky. Cincy to Cleveland is another story.


I'm not just being cheeky either. Adding additional travel legs has a big impact on short trips like this. Renting a car at the airport and driving to wherever could take an hour, adds steps, and is costly. Hopping off the train and walking to your destination downtown, or calling a quick uber is low stress, low cost and could take 5-20 minutes.



Do we have an actual estimate on how long these trains will take to make the trip? I'm willing to sacrifice some time if it means a lower stress or lower cost trip, which doesn't apply to flights of this distance.

[SonySegaTendo617]

Originally Posted by 46H

There is zero justification for high speed rail in the USA mainly due to the cost. Between the political decisions, landowners/nimbys with lawyers, topography, environmental issues, lack of population density, and the already existing network of air travel and highway travel, there is no way to justify HSR.

It is now 15 years into California's attempt at HSR between LA and SF and they are only working on 119 mile section out of 500 miles. They have already spent over $9.8 billion.
"Estimates suggest it will cost between $88 billion and $128 billion to complete the entire system from LA to San Francisco."
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/17/why-...-complete.html

Estimates for the Texas High Speed Rail 240 mile route between Houston and Dallas are now around $30 Billion or $125 Million per mile. After about a decade, there is still no funding and now they are trying to bring in Amtrak to support this money loser.
https://www.enr.com/articles/57000-a...d-rail-project

China's HSR is one of the reasons for the Chinese economy sucking wind due to the enormous debt of $900 BILLION or equivalent to about 5% of China's gross domestic product. Also, unlike the US, China never has to deal with any land ownership or environmental issues about where to site the track. China also has way higher population density vs the USA.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Tra...take-back-seat

There is no funding or need for any new HSR in the USA.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Brightline only expanded service north to Orlando, like since last year? Plus others are in the planning stages, like Las Vegas to Rancho Cucamonga and also Houston to Dallas. To me I'd wait several years till trains have began running to look at their ridership, before calling it a failure.

This thread reminds me, I should look up the proposed route of the California high speed rail between SF to LA. Whatever route was proposed for that. It's too bad Amtrak never came to an agreement with whoever owns the freight railroad south of Bakersfield(the Tehacaipi(sp?) Pass area), to allow San Joaquins Amtrak passenger trains(between either Sacramento or somewhere in the east bay area(Oakland, I forget?) to LA, but train service only goes south to Bakersfield) to run through there. Right now Amtrak trains aren't allowed to run through there, with the rare exception being if the Coast Starlight has to detour through there. For all the years Amtrak has ran San Joaquin train service due to this rule, Amtrak has had to bus passengers between Bakersfield to LA. It's too bad they have to do that.