I really thin you're wrong about that. I think you're looking at it with a late 20th century mindset. In those days, yes, the personal automobile was king. But then gas was a lot cheaper and a lot less scarce.

 

I saw a statistic the other day (sorry, don't have the numbers) that showed that people are much more concerned these days about energy conservation and the environment. The public mindset has changed. People want efficient, low-cost transportation; and their concerned about our dependence on oil. I think, now more than ever before, people would flock to a regional light rail system.

 

The obvious problem is the enormous start-up and infrastructure cost. But I truly believe it would work and it would end up being an economic positive to the region. I'd like to see Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, Lexington and Louisville included initially. Perhaps, later, other cities could be added.

It's too expensive, BF. I don't see it happening, it makes more sense to find other sources of fuel. Switching to natural gas would make more sense than rail.

:lol: You need to check what you consider reality. No other country uses the automobile like this country does, instead of insulting me think first about what you're arguing. The cost is too much, we're not set up the same as the other countries. It makes more sense to advance electric cars then to do rail the way you're talking about.

 

 

RTS, you make a lot of claims, but I don't see any data to back them up.

 

"The cost is too much." Really? How much would it cost? With >$100 oil, how much would it save?

 

"We're not set up the same as the other countries" In what way? We have existing railroad rights of way connecting all major cities.

 

You said earlier that people wouldn't give up their cars in favor of railway passenger service. But that statement is also not backed up by facts.

 

 

Illinois: Illinois Amtrak ridership explodes with new service

 

New York: Travelers Shift to Rail as Cost of Fuel Rises

 

Seattle, Washington: Amtrak ridership hits record high

 

Missouri: High fuel prices driving AMTRAK ridershp numbers up

 

California: Amtrak ridership soars with gas prices

RTS, you make a lot of claims, but I don't see any data to back them up.

 

"The cost is too much." Really? How much would it cost? With >$100 oil, how much would it save?

 

"We're not set up the same as the other countries" In what way? We have existing railroad rights of way connecting all major cities.

 

You said earlier that people wouldn't give up their cars in favor of railway passenger service. But that statement is also not backed up by facts.

 

 

Illinois: Illinois Amtrak ridership explodes with new service

 

New York: Travelers Shift to Rail as Cost of Fuel Rises

 

Seattle, Washington: Amtrak ridership hits record high

 

Missouri: High fuel prices driving AMTRAK ridershp numbers up

 

California: Amtrak ridership soars with gas prices

I posted FACTS of the COST of expanding rail, but you chose to ignore it, so...

 

I also posted it makes more sense to change to natural gas for fuel, but you chose to ignore it, so...

It's too expensive, BF. I don't see it happening, it makes more sense to find other sources of fuel. Switching to natural gas would make more sense than rail.

 

 

"It's too expensive." But, it's not too expensive to spend $700B to bail out irresponsibility. Our government has it's priorities skewed.

"It's too expensive." But, it's not too expensive to spend $700B to bail out irresponsibility. Our government has it's priorities skewed.

I agree but that has zero to do with anything I've said.

I agree but that has zero to do with anything I've said.

 

 

No...investment in rail transportation is an investment in the long-term. The short-term cost is not prohibitive when viewed with the vision of the long-term benefits.

No...investment in rail transportation is an investment in the long-term. The short-term cost is not prohibitive when viewed with the vision of the long-term benefits.

Do you really think people are just going to bail on their cars? Why not natural gas? Rail is NOT the answer, it's not convenient enough and it's too costly.

Do you really think people are just going to bail on their cars? Why not natural gas? Rail is NOT the answer, it's not convenient enough and it's too costly.

 

 

First, I think the "convenient" tag is hogwash. Cities like New York and Chicago have rail systems, and the East Coast has tons of commuters via train from the 'burbs. Oh, poor America! They have to walk 5 blocks from their stop or leave earlier for work!

 

They'd be able to keep their cars. Just use them less. Rail is more efficient and less costly. It also would impact emissions and congestion.

 

This country is soft. There's nothing inconvenient about mass transportation if you plan.

First, I think the "convenient" tag is hogwash. Cities like New York and Chicago have rail systems, and the East Coast has tons of commuters via train from the 'burbs. Oh, poor America! They have to walk 5 blocks from their stop or leave earlier for work!

 

They'd be able to keep their cars. Just use them less. Rail is more efficient and less costly. It also would impact emissions and congestion.

 

This country is soft. There's nothing inconvenient about mass transportation if you plan.

Inconvenient because it doesn't always go where you need it to. Soft has nothing to do with it. You keep ignoring natural gas, why? You do realize we have lots of it, right?

Inconvenient because it doesn't always go where you need it to. Soft has nothing to do with it. You keep ignoring natural gas, why? You do realize we have lots of it, right?

 

 

You transfer. :lol: If it doesn't go where one needs to go, you don't use it. But, the majority would find rail would go where they needed it to go.

 

I'm not ignoring natural gas. That's not the debate here, though.

You transfer. :lol: If it doesn't go where one needs to go, you don't use it. But, the majority would find rail would go where they needed it to go.

 

I'm not ignoring natural gas. That's not the debate here, though.

You are and it is. I said it would make more sense and be cheaper. $6.5 million per mile of track for rail and about $40 million per mile for light rail to be able to do those transfers you're talking about. TOO expensive.

You are and it is. I said it would make more sense and be cheaper. $6.5 million per mile of track for rail and about $40 million per mile for light rail to be able to do those transfers you're talking about. TOO expensive.

 

I would like to read about that, do you have the link?

 

Natural gas is non-renewable and we would remain susceptible to the whims of foreign governments (Russia, Nigeria). If we are going to fundamentally overhaul the system, we should be sure to correct the problems we have with gas and oil.

I would like to read about that, do you have the link?

 

Natural gas is non-renewable and we would remain susceptible to the whims of foreign governments (Russia, Nigeria). If we are going to fundamentally overhaul the system, we should be sure to correct the problems we have with gas and oil.

 

Thanks Habib. :lol:

 

RTS, natural gas is NOT the same debate as Rail or Light-Rail. You're talking about switching from one resource to another, with no decrease in use of either. I'm talking about reducing the depletion of natural resources.

 

Not the same debate.

I would like to read about that, do you have the link?

 

Natural gas is non-renewable and we would remain susceptible to the whims of foreign governments (Russia, Nigeria). If we are going to fundamentally overhaul the system, we should be sure to correct the problems we have with gas and oil.

That's why I said it makes sense to continue making better electric cars or finding better sources of fuel.

 

http://m.knoxnews.com/news/2008/Jul/06/all-aboard/

Thanks Habib. :lol:

 

RTS, natural gas is NOT the same debate as Rail or Light-Rail. You're talking about switching from one resource to another, with no decrease in use of either. I'm talking about reducing the depletion of natural resources.

 

Not the same debate.

It WAS part of MY debate, so