seanmcl

Sorry if this comment seems offensive, but the recent news showing that Al Qaeda was targeting passenger trains in the US shows how misguided they were. All they needed to do was to contribute to Republican gubernatorial candidates's campaigns.

Six trains a day in each direction; seven for Charlotte. I took the train from Pittsburgh to Charleston, SC, every other week for almost a year. Most of the riders weren't retirees looking for a relaxed way to travel. They were individuals and families looking to get from one place to another and the train was the most convenient way to do it (too bad Charleston moved its train station out of downtown). As KJP and others have noted, if you have nothing you have nothing to which you can compare it.

The first attempt at planning for a national system of roadways was the Pershing map, the creation of which was undertaken in 1921. This followed the experiences of Transcontinental Motor Convoy of 1919 in which Dwight Eisenhower participated. The Bureau of Public Roads descended from the Office of Road Inquiry which was created in 1893. It is somewhat narrow to think that the vision for a national system of motor highways started with construction following WWI, especially since the anti-rail sentiment that stimulated the government to consider undertaking a taxpayer funded alternative began nearly 50 years before that. People who argue that the government shouldn't compete with the private sector (or that passenger rail should be a private sector initiative), seem to forget history.

Actually, a better response is that there IS a return on investment for highways (and roads). But the problem is that some of that "return" is actually a shifting of wealth from one community to another. Moreover, rarely is the result a zero sum game. The losing side stands to lose more from the blight of abandoned properties while the winning side wins less due to the fact that revenues are offset by the higher costs of development. Roadways do create a return on investment, but not always as desired or intended. Limited access highways are a bit better because the points of egress and ingress are controlled and planned. But you still have the problem that these are relatively easy to add and so communities interested in development tend to raid neighboring communities that already have it. In addition, as development occurs along road corridors, so does congestion resulting in the need for more roads. The question is not really whether there is a return on investment, but rather, is the kind of return we want? I don't think that there is much argument that "gains" experienced by the suburbs has come at great cost to the city centers around which they sprung. There is also a return on the investment in passenger rail. But passenger rail has some distinct advantages, most notably, the fact that development can be better planned and less speculative, as well as less damaging to the environment, established communities and the safety of travelers.

As a taxpayer, I'd like to know where the return on my "investment" of the $1 billion that Scott's company defrauded from Medicare. Of course, $10 million went to Scott's golden parachute and another $350 million went to the value of the stock he was given when he left. It amazes me that guys like Scott are the darlings of the Tea Party movement while living off the taxpayers.

I'd be interested in comments as to whether this is feasible but with what seems to be an end the Florida story, I question whether it is wise to shift the $2+ billion to California, or whether it would be put to better use improving corridors in the Midwest, Atlantic and Northeast, especially in areas where the contribution of state governments would not be needed. Assuming, for a moment, that there would a significant increase in ridership if we could guarantee average speeds > 79 mph for Chicago-Pittsburgh, Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Buffalo (or beyond), and dedicated track along at least some of those routes, it is conceivable that service could be increased to two or three trains/day in each direction which would allow trains to stop in Cleveland during daylight hours. Ohio could sell its stake in the Panhandle line to Amtrak to re-establish Pittsburgh-Columbus service. Further improvements could be made in Chicago to lessen the impact of freight on passenger traffic. None of this would be as showy as a 90 mile HSR corridor in Florida but, overall, it might have more of an impact on the public's perception of passenger rail especially in the swing states like Oh, Pa and In. Making the trains accessible to day travelers, especially Cleveland-Pittsburgh, would, I think, increase the recreational use of these trains as well as the educational use, perhaps leading in a broader acceptance of the benefits of a balanced transportation infrastructure. I'm not opposed to the project in California, but I think that the funds could be put to better use in other regions, especially if we can keep the short-sighted governors out of the picture.

I was comparing the EFV and JSF to 3C in terms of economic impacts on Ohio. My estimates as to the cost to Ohio with the loss of the former two programs may have been low. By some estimates, the total loss will be $3 billion and approximately 1200 jobs. $400 million might seem low in comparison but it is still $400 million to an economy that could sure use some good news. When public investment in infrastructure took place is irrelevant. The fact is that it did and, in today's dollars, it was probably not less than the $7 million in operating subsidies requested of Ohio for the 3C.

Saudi Arabia is using profits from high oil revenues to subsidize programs for its citizens hoping to stave off a revolution in the kingdom. Chavez' popularity in Venezuela is directly related to the amount of oil revenus poured into social and economic programs. Oil prices will stay up not only because of increasing demand but because despotic regimes need the revenues to stay in power. And yet many Republicans don't view our dependency on the automobile as an issue of national defense.

Those governors are completely missing the point of the last election. People want jobs and with the other cut backs the states will be facing, rejecting HSR funds is going to look like an incredibly stupid decision. Part of the reason that the Obama administration is pushing Florida is it was so far along to begin with and, therefore, likely to serve as a model for what might be done, elsewhere. It should be remembered that Scott presided over the company that defrauded the Federal Government of over $600 million.

Look at what is happening in Wisconsin. People want less of a deficit with no increases in taxes. The conservatives are hoping that the economy won't improve in 2012 and that will be the end of the administration. What they don't get is that given their way, it will actually get much worse. And they'll be remembered for it.

It'll be interesting to see how Kasich responds to the administration's plans to eliminate EFV production in Lima and the alternate JSF engine at the GE facility in Dayton which will cost Ohio business about $1.5 billion. I wonder how much the taxpayers of Ohio paid for the infrastructure improvements that supported these two facilities.

Understood. And, as matter of fact, this is a rehash of the same stale arguments (and practically the same text), as he used when arguing against the $8 billion HSR jumpstart. But I put it out there in case someone wanted to respond. The Washington Post tends to give preference to letters from individuals living in their circulation territory.

High-speed rail is a fast track to government waste By Robert J. Samuelson Monday, February 14, 2011 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/13/AR2011021302203.html

Aha. Well, one should be more specific. I didn't think that Kasich is worth discussing. His lack of thoughtfulness and reason is, unfortunately, appealing to many Ohioans. Sad that such a beautiful state should be relegated to a person who will plunge Ohio into the bowels of poverty. But, hey, our empty highways will sure be a great way for the horse carts to deliver ice blocks to the cold chests that we'll need, once electricity becomes too expensive.

Hmmm. Lemme see. Which war did this administration pursue (with the cost of the war in Iraq estimated at $6 trillion)? The DOW was under 8000 when Bush left office; it closed above 12,000, today. The meltdown of the financial industry started with easy credit and lax financial regulation during the Clinton years but ballooned under the Bush years. Corporate America is sitting on $2.1 trillion in cash reserves. Does that look like the private sector is going to take the lead? By all accounts, the "economic stimulus" was not enough but the Democrats were afraid to push for more, still, there is little doubt that without TARP (started under Bust), the ARRA (Obama) and the Obama decision to intervene in the affairs of GM, Chysler and AIG, to name a few, the recession would have been much worse. So be specific. What policies are "economic suicide" and have the historical facts, not the Faux News "facts" to back up your assertions? The Obama administration was smart and courageous to back their transportation strategy in the midst of a mindless discussion about balancing the budget through cuts, alone. And, to be fair, the total package includes other, non-rail, transportation investments, as well.