Maxito

I'm not sure how the highways are subsidized outside of the gas tax which is paid by those that use the roads - maybe you could provide some specifics on that. Also sorry BB you are just wrong about the 2C initiative - it may have been envisioned that the ticket cost would be $18 and trip time of 2 1/2 hours at the beginning of the study in 1998 but the conclusion was the ticket price was three times that and the trip time almost double. The following information was specific to the study done by the I-71 Corridor Rail Demonstration Committee and resulted in the Ohio Rail Development Commission recommending against pursuing this particular project in the spring of 2000. Please remember these are late 90s early 2000 dollars. Intercity rail Original Estimates Study Results Capital and Equipment $32 million $50 million Operating costs $6 million $6 million Revenues $3 million $1.5 million Ridership per year 130,000 80,000 And for your information there was well-rounded participation on the I-71 Corridor Rail Demonstration Committee from a variety of interested parties including ODOT, ORDC, Amtrak, other railroads, and affected city and county officials, metropolitan planning organizations, transit authorities, and federal agencies. So the decision was not made by solely by those that are in love with highways.

Hey KJP thanks for the links and for the suggestion to try a search. I've been involved with Transportation for a long time and have heard these unrealistic plans based on trumped up numbers and lower than estimated costs. However, like I posted previously when the theory that is boasted so highly meets the reality we have to live in the fantasy just doesn't work. Pieces in the right circumstances might but the trouble is these ideas that are being advocated are so far out there they are impossible.

I can't speak for other states but there is no general revenue money in the state budget that goes to fund state road projects period. The two revenue sources are the state and federal gas tax. The license and title fees primarily got to the highway patrol and local governments (for their road projects). I would even venture to guess that there is no state that a significant chunk of general fund money goes to state road projects but what the definition of significant may differ among the masses. Europe does have a very fine passenger rail system and living in old urban areas (like, 500 years old) is quite popular there. however the passenger rail bias in Europe transport policy has come at the expense of freight rail – far more European freight moves on its overburdened highway system than here. This makes road congestion across the pond much worse than here, and consequently, makes passenger rail more attractive. It is important that a federal strategy be developed similar to the one used to build the interstate system. It would be great if there were enough resources to fully fund all projects rail, water, air and highway but realistically that will not happen. So priorities are established and those priorities are determined through much debate and weighing where the greatest useage occurs - which is the highway system that serves as the skeleton of our nation for both freight and people movement. That system can be subsidized with alternative modes but they will serve as alternatives not the primary source for travel because the bottom line is businesses will ship on the most cost effective/profit generating mode and people will use the most convenient and least costly mode.

I'm a bit confused please tell me where the additional money to fix the highway system if not from the gas tax. While gas has risen dramatically it still does not contend with prices in Europe and Japan. Speaking of Japan the reason the rail system works there is the result of several factors. High insurance rates, most of the major thoroughfares are toll roads, gas prices that are significantly more than here, and population density about 3/4 of the U.S. population on a land mass roughly the size of California. Not to mention that system was built from the ground up after WWII. Maybe you should take the sprawl discussion and tell the farmers to stop selling their land that helps promote the movement of people into the rural setting and away from urban cores.

I think the price of gas needs to continue to rise to really have an effect on the choice of mode a traveler uses. While $4 is much more than we have ever seen, it still isn't that much of a sacrifice for most people to absorb. If there is an impact to the cost of consumer products (which more than likely will happen) because of the costs of logistics, people will make different choices. However, it will be not to travel for vacation, less trips to the movie theatre, shopping malls and places like that.

The reality is because the U.S. is so spread out passenger rail is not convenient for a high majority of travelers. It can work in areas with condense population i.e. Europe and Japan and our urban centers. Just look at the numbers more people use their cars or fly because of the convenience. You are correct on the subsidization of the highways it's called the gas tax paid for by people that use the facilities. And regarding sprawl you are not going to stop people from living where they want to live and in most instances the highway network does not utilize the build it and they will come philosophy which is illustrated in the choke points that are created by new travel patterns.

I think in theory an intercity passenger rail system sounds great, however when that theory hits reality it is difficult to see it being self sufficient. The overhead costs are tremendous and in reality the ridership numbers are tough to see being able to support the costs. You may want to dust of the ODOT study that was done in the mid-90's when the department was looking to widen I-71. A pretty comprehensive study was done because the public liked the idea of passenger rail between Cleveland and Columbus. However, when the ticket costs ($54 one-way or close to it) and travel time (about 4 hours one-way) were identified the public lost interest pretty quick. However, urban passenger rail/light rail could potentially be workable because of the density of the population that would use it. Unfortunately, this may also be problematic when you hear of the financial troubles that the D.C. and Chicago systems have had - even with the volume of people that use those systems.

Your ODOT friend on the panel is incorrect - Policinski only mentioned it cost about $7 billion to build nothing about it being too expensive. He also mentioned the importance of rail to move freight and about a light rail proposal for SW Ohio. It's too bad that was not provided to you in the feedback and that there was only silence on rail. I also believe Roxanne Qualls talked about the proposed streetcar plan that is currently being discussed for downtown Cincinnati, I guess that wasn't heard either.

As an individual that was at the Dayton meeting on the 22nd and heard the comments of the invited speakers, I think you are way off in claiming there was a negativity against rail. In fact Policinski mentioned it would take $7 billion to build the Ohio Hub and that combined with the other needs of the state regarding transportation it would be a tremendous task to fund those needs. All of the speakers talked of the needs of their particular area and rail both passenger and freight were mentioned. The primary focus was to emphasize there are huge needs and there needs to be open discussion on how to finance the projects and reduce the time to build them. And widening I-75 is an enormous priority because of the volume of traffic that uses it both freight and passenger - not only for this area but as a connector from Mich. to Fla.