327

^ KeyBank Station sounds a lot better, I think.

Yes! Florida is going from zero to 150+ between Tampa and Orlando. Presumably the "incremental" process is on a per-track basis... if it refers to entire state governments, entire state populations, then it's completely ludicrous. That's like saying Ohio needs 25,000 experience points to reach 5th level as a wizard before it can cast the Flying spell. And natininja you're right, there could soon be a burst of new tech in this area, and we may benefit from not installing something that's about to be obsolete. But keep in mind that we're already talking about installing something that's about to be obsolete.

This is a lot of time and money being wasted on PA. I'm still waiting to hear a plausible future use for it. I still think it's obsolete and needs to come down, to make way for something more likely to see daily use at such an important address. And it's not like PA was rendered obsolete by malls in the suburbs, it was rendered obsolete by multiple downtown and in-city venues. It's a giant cinderblock where there ought to be skyscrapers. Let it go.

Please elaborate... who here is claiming that we're not allowed to skip a step, and that this unchallengable commandment is why it's necessary to spend our entire allotment on the same 79 mph service that other states are currently replacing. They move to 110, we build 79. They move to 150, we upgrade to 110. They reach 220, we reach the level Florida is currently at. As long as we have to follow the same "incremental" path they did, we will forever be behind them. The gap begins to close only when Ohio refuses to be "incremental" and insists on building modern competitive service.

We should have asked for $1B anyway, which means we should have asked for $2B. We should have demonstrated a sense for the way things were moving at the national level, i.e. away from 79 mph service. It's one thing to play catch-up, it's another thing if what you're doing does not result in any actual catching up. Under this logic, Ohio will have the worst rail service in America for the next 1000 years... or until every other state simultaneously stops improving, because that's the only chance we'd ever have to match their technology.

You know what holds up really well in the elements? Brick.

Richard Burton in WWII movie: "We will attack hyah, and hyah, and hyah... on shedule!"

Granted, but were we the only state who didn't even ask for HSR? As part of an HSR program that can in fact build HSR from scratch and is being promoted nationwide as HSR? Ohio is a swing state that is widely credited with putting Obama over the top, so we were bound to get something, but it's hard for me to envision how we could have gotten any less. In fairness, what was DC supposed to do if we literally did not ask for any HSR? I'm trying to figure out who decided there would be no HSR for Ohio. Did DC decide that? Did Ohio? It sounds more and more like it was a strategic miscalculation on our end. I think the majority of people in Cincinnati would prefer a Cleveland-Canton HSR over 3-C, and the majority in Cleveland would prefer Cincy-Dayton HSR over 3-C. I think if 3-C is presented as slower-than-car for a period of years it gets virtually no popular support, and I think most of the support 3-C has received has been based on the misunderstanding that it would be competitive both with cars and with rail in other states. I can't help but wonder if we'd have gotten more money by going for high-speed instead of wider coverage. MMQB, I know, but if there's any chance of refocusing or repurposing those funds then we gotta look into it. We can't even build the 3-C with what they gave us, so a major selling point of that plan is out the door. Increasingly I feel like the whole "3-C" concept was a political calculation, and not in the best interest of rail travel or of Ohio. Now that Cincy is getting the shit end of the stick, I think the political calculation may be backfiring and it's time for a serious re-jiggeration of our priorities. Based on all the other awards, and the singular slowness of Ohio's, it looks like we missed the boat in a major way. Is any other state spending ARRA money on anything this slow? I don't care if they already have something this slow, I mean are they building that now, with this money. How much of what we're about to buy will carry over to the high-speed system we actually want? How much of this $400 million is going toward equipment that's obsolete before we even buy it? Think about that... our very next goal is to replace this thing. Our very next goal. That's a lot of money to spend jumping through hoops and going through motions, a paradigm which may itself be obsolete. Lots of paradigms have been "true" for the last 30 years or so, only to come crashing down at some point recently. So do we really have to level-up our character like we're playing D&D or WoW? That's how it's being made to sound, and that's insane.

Those "new" pictures of the Amtrak station still look like a credit union, one that has a janitor.

^ That shouldn't be an issue.

I'm still baffled that it's not being done in conjunction with the MM/CC. Even if it's to be done at a later stage... they should still be talking about it now and they aren't. I do recall Falanga saying he had no interest in rail connections for the CC, but that was before trains became the next big thing.

Re: cheap materials... I was referring primarily to new construction, the stuff w/o "bones." Nothing wrong with the old stuff, except that too much of it has been torn down. Although I have heard comments from Chicagoans that Clevleand's older housing tends a little too often toward wood. But as you said, a lot of our nicer stock is gone. But when you hear me talk about cheap materials, as above, I mean the tendency for everything we build here these days to be finished off with vinyl siding, corrugated aluminum, and vast expanses of some featureless unidentified polymer that looks like construction paper and starts peeling off after a couple years. Look at pictures of new construction in other cities and it tends to feature brick and stone, which in my opinion looks 100x classier.

Practical or not, that winning entry is pretty sweet.

Correction: Florida's high speed rail is from "scratch." $1.8 billion for 84 miles In that case, we couldn't even do HSR from Col-Day with the money we've been allotted. I wonder if Ohio's funding application was based on the idea that the 3C aspect was more important than the HSR aspect. Did we even ask for something like Florida did? Did we make a conscious decision not to? If I'm in DC and I'm presented with Ohio's application for an entire state worth of slow trains, vs. Florida's "let's build HSR right now and show people what it can do" theory... I'm probably giving Florida billions and giving Ohio a small fraction of that. That dreaded "vision thing" again. It's like Cleveland's RTA telling us the feds won't help us build new rail... when RTA has submitted no such plans to the feds and shows zero interest in developing any plans for new rail. Regardless of all that... Blame those fools in Washington!!! Yeah right. Don't tell me what can and can't be done. Tell me what happened when you actually tried to do it, and maybe we can find a solution.

This project has been sold as HSR and as 3C, yet it won't be either one of those things within any conceivable timeframe. Perhaps expectations were too high all along. OK, so it appears that instant-HSR is physically possible in Florida. I would suggest laying down infrastructure as quickly as possible here, because we don't know how long we'll have democrats in office at any level. I'm not saying panic. I'm saying these things swing to and fro, and for all we know we're about to enter another Conservative Decade. If that happens, any part of this project left for future monies may not get done for quite a while. I'd prefer that Ohio enter that hypothetical situation with at least one state-of-the-art example of passenger rail for us to rally around. I don't wanna be telling people "no, you just haven't yet seen what it can really do" when the thing's already been running for years. And I don't wanna be telling them "it was never possible to build any HSR here, not until we first ran slow trains for X years" if that's demonstrably false.

You're among friends here, but please, for the sake of all we believe in, please do not use that approach with the general public. I personally find it illogical to tell people that America already has a successful rail system, yet we need to completely overhaul that system at great cost right away. I've written government papers on the concept of "continuous improvement" and it's a concept that applies to internal operations, not to consumable products or services. It's not something you try to sell your customers on. So skip that issue entirely... I understand that it would be unprecedented, but is it physically impossible to build hi-speed from scratch? Next question... I understand that it would be unprecedented, but would it be physically impossible to even discuss or consider such a thing?

^ That article makes clear how stupid it is to exurbanize the city, as well as how stupid it is for Cleveland architecture to continue featuring the cheapest possible materials. Of course it says neither of these things, instead suggesting that urban redevelopment is simply a joke of an idea. It mentions that the original plan was to build townhouses with lake views, but neighboring homeowners insisted that only single family homes be built, regardless of views, because they want only "families" living nearby. It's as if children couldn't possibly have existed before 1960. Thus we end up with a generic and out-of-place development that has no market whatsoever... again.

If the US were already peppered with truly successful passenger rail, why on earth would we be spending billions all at once on upgrades? Why this big fuss, why this big bill, if there's already successful rail everywhere you look? The argument's premises don't add up to its conclusion... so it's immaterial how many times the argument is presented. On a national scale, the idea is that we need this upgrade because current services ARE NOT sufficiently successful, nor can they be without the upgrade. But to make the Ohio-specific argument you're making, this entire characterization must be reversed. Can't have it both ways. My crazy notion of going directly from zero service to high speed... is this a physical impossibility, is this a business impossibility (if so in what way), or is this an assumption we're making simply because it's never been attempted? Look... there's no need to question my commitment to Sparkle Motion... I'm just interested in the feasibility of Plans B or C or D.

Salt is not seasoning, it's salt. Two different issues.

I think that by building the 79 mph version across the whole state, we throw a giant haymaker that the enemies of rail investment could counter rather effectively. So I'm asking if, within the available budget, we could open with hi-speed service on ANY leg of the route. I suggested the Dayton legs only because those would involve the least miles/track. More ideally, I would build Cle-Cbus as hi-speed and wait on the rest, as I suggested over the weekend, but that's the longest leg, so maybe there's not enough cash for that alternative. I'm looking for alternatives... specifically alternatives that emphasize quality over quantity. I think we're trying to do too much at once. I'm afraid a cobbled-together service of limited practical utility will end up framing future debates in the worst possible way. On the one hand, I may be overstating this line of thought... but on the other hand, I really think it's being glossed over by the pro-rail side, maybe to our long term detriment.

They don't, it's no different than a "purity test" on the other side. The thought was that she could alienate the base without stealing a single conservative vote, and thus lose. Can't afford to lose that particular office with redistricting on the horizon.

^ I like them that way. They could ease up on the salt a little, but certainly not the garlic.

There isn't too much to build, is there? I'm guessing most of the equipment at this stage will not be new, even it the service technically is. One advantage of this approach is that we may have trains rolling before Kasich can do anything about it. Then, hypthetically, it would be tougher to shut it down. This could end up being the central debate in the governor's race. With that as a backdrop, we might consider a different kind of "incremental" approach for Ohio... cover the whole state slowly, in increments, but with each increment being modern hi-speed service. First of all, let's remember that Clevleand is slated to get hi-speed service to Toledo and Chicago, presumably on a quicker timeframe than any 3C upgrade. Second, let's consider skipping the low-speed stage of 3C and building modern hi-speed track from Dayton to Columbus, maybe Dayton to Sharonville as well. Could this be done for $400m? The next few years could be rough going for progressive ideas in Ohio, and I don't want the voting public here to give up on rail travel before they experience its modern form. Then again, if we instead prioritize getting some service rolling as soon as possible, i.e. the current plan, we could at least force the other side to physically shut it down. That may be hard for them to do, once it's running. I guess this all depends on how much of a threat Kasich truly represents. A changeover in DC is unlikely till at least 2013, and until that happens, we can count on DC as an ally. Hell, remember how the legal drinking age came about? DC could withhold highway funds from any states that refuse to play nice with rail.

Ok. I understand what you're saying. I would suggest you contact Patrick Simmons at NCDOT and Patricia Quinn with the New England Passenger Rail Authority and ask them how they are defining success. Frank Busalacchi with Wisconsin DOT (Hiawatha Corridor) would be another suggestion. I wouldn't ask those people for a definition of success, because they have a personal interest in whether those projects are viewed as successes. Those people are essentially IN SALES for those services. Hey Merrill Lynch-- is Merrill Lynch any good? "Super, thanks for asking!" As far as the general public is concerned, the bar is several notches higher. If Ohio shoots for the current status quo of passenger rail, the one that's been stagnant for decades, achieving that goal may not impress the locals or anyone else... no matter how much better than nothing it may be.

Re: "if true" I didn't mean the stats, I meant the assertion that existing lines are successful, at least in the way we need them to be. The mark we should be shooting for is a plausible substitute for car travel for the majority of the market. That's why the overall program is being presented as "high speed rail" and why the offerings need to distinguish themselves from existing services. This is an attempt to shake up the market and reposition rail as an alternative worth using-- for everyone, not just for enthusiasts and those who are "car free" in the non-lifestyle sense. Re: avoidable cost, I'm saying it shouldn't be any more than that for these operations, Amtrak or not. If current federal legislation is obsolete then we need to change it. Re: congress, of course it was determined in congress that congress did good. But they don't get to write their own report card, not even historically. For one thing, I'm sure that congressional study didn't factor in any future costs from the situation we're facing now. I don't think the freight lines should be able to tack a profit onto this, or frustrate its purpose by giving it a prohibitive dispatch priority. We'll just have to balance the needs of freight and passengers, and the RRs deserve to recover their marginal costs. Once we finally get additional track laid, everyone will be happy.