seanmcl

The sad fact is that most Americans (not just Ohioans) are simply ill-educated about economics. $7 million dollars a year sounds like alot of money (in reality, about $0.58/capita; less than a can of soda) especially when we are talking about something that hasn't even been built, yet. And that, on top of a political tone which saw "hope" turned into "fear", simply made that seem worse. The Republicans (I won't call them fiscal conservatives because they aren't), were able to turn the "fear" of runaway spending and increased taxes into a vote for the status quo. I wonder how many of those who believed that 58 cents/year is a bad investment pay $29 or more/month to get cable TV?

I couldn't disagree with you, more. First, these stops take a few minutes at most. Hardly enough to make a dent in the overall speed. Second, most metro-{Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati} residents don't live near the train station and making them drive or take other transportation into city center would be a waste if a stop along the way will do. I routinely take the Amtrak between DC and Pittsburgh and I work in Chantilly. Rockville and Harper's Ferry stops make it possible for people who live and work in the Metro DC area NOT have to travel to Union Station (which I love, but it isn't exactly convenient, especially since they decided not to make the Metro come out here when they first built the system). Assuming that the majority of your riders would want to go from downtown A to downtown B is a pretty big (and, IMHO, fallacious) assumption. In my own experience, the destination may be downtown but the origin is often otherwise. In fact, I live along the original Pittsburgh, Ft. Wayne and Chicago Railroad (Pennsylvania RR). five doors down from the old train station (now a VFW). When I don't take the train, one of the reasons is that it is too inconvenient for to get a car, drive downtown, and park, yet the Capitol Limited passes my house twice a day (and there is still a tunnel under the tracks). Access and convenience are as or more important than speed, in my experience. By the way, I got an investment newsletter, today. The lead article: The Four Ways to Profit From $150 Oil By Dr. Kent Moors, Ph.D., Contributing Writer, Money Morning Crude oil is about to skyrocket in price. In fact, I believe we'll be looking at $150-a-barrel oil by mid-summer. For most U.S. consumers, higher oil will equate to higher expenses, and a bigger drain on the household budget. MOD EDIT: Added link to article in title.

It probably makes little sense to point out that no matter how much you cut discretionary spending, you aren't going to make a dent in the Federal deficit unless you also cut entitlements and increase taxes. Dana Milbank has a nice retort in today's Washington Post in which he exposes the fact that this is nothing more than Republican "payback", hitting programs that the Republicans have long hated. Among the cuts would be a devastating cut to the DC Metro which is in the worst state that it has been in over a decade.

And try to bring a bottle of liquor (or mouthwash or whatever), on a plane. Seriously, Union Liquors in Washington, DC, get some ice and a Ziplock bag (makes a great shaker and takes up less room), and you are golden. Possibly, but there isn't much room in those bedrooms so it would have to be someone who didn't mind giving up some personal space (and, hopefully, someone with good hygiene). I always seem to find someone to share a bottle of wine with, though (the train wine being horrible and expensive, for what you get).

One of the main regrets that I have, at least on the Capitol Limited, is that they eliminated the movies in the Lounge Car and replaced them with personal DVD rentals. Although most of the time they ended up showing bad Adam Sandler movies, there was a lot more interaction between the lounge car viewers then there is, frequently, now. And once, we we were stuck for 8 hours on the Sand Patch, somebody pulled out a few unedited films that were not quite "family" oriented but nobody seemed to care, by that point. I also wonder why the refurbished cars have a bar, but no bartender and no liquor. On many a trip from Reading to London, UK, I would stand at the bar in the lounge car and talk with the other travelers.

Ironically, that is what 3-C was. By some estimates, as much as $3 billion in private development would have followed the $400 million invested by the Feds. Forest City, alone, had planned hundreds of millions of dollars in development. Economists (and some smart investors like Ray Kroc), have recognized, for decade, that private developent follows transportation. But what do we expect most citizens to know when American school children don't even rank in the top 10 most educated in the world? Don't expect the private sector to make any significant commitments when the American voters can't. It takes years and expensive studies, permits, etc., to get a project to groundbreaking. It takes far less time to replace a politician and with him or her, a consistent vision for the future. HL Mencken was talking about the US Presidency but he could have just as easily been referring to Ohio politics:

The irony is that this is not a new idea at all. The modern Megalopolis concept was introduced in the late 30's and refined in the late 50's. In 2005 dollars, the "GreatLakes" region which would encompass parts of New York, Western PA, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Missouri would be the second largest economy in the US and the sixth largest economy in the world (though this is far less likely now that Republicans control significant parts of these states). In particular, what has always hurt Pittsburgh is its desire to part of the East Coast (the mountains being a bit of a problem, however), instead of recognizing that its economic future belongs with the rust belt (that an the spillover animosity towards Cleveland and Buffalo arising out of the sports rivalries). That is one reason why the Ohio Hub Project was so critical not only to Ohio, but to the Great Lakes Megalopolis not only in terms of passenger rail but in terms of freight, as well. People who think that rail and barge are "old" ways of doing things don't seem to realize that largest cost of many manufactured goods is the total cost of shipping and that the greatest of these costs is the last mile (to your door). I once did work for steel company during a period where they had just completed evaluating a number of areas in which to locate a new mini-mill (including the Ohio Valley). Next to labor, their single greatest consideration in terms of location was the cost to transport raw and finished materials (including the cost of materials used to produce the electricity that the mill would consume). Without rail and water, there would be no manufacturing in the US yet our national investment in these is pitiful and getting worse.

The article should have been tagged "Idiot truck driver ignores crossing signals; 20 injured." Amtrak train hits truck in Calif.; 20 injured SHAFTER, Calif. (AP) -- Police say an Amtrak train hit a big-rig truck at a California crossing, sending 20 people to hospitals for treatment for minor injuries. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AMTRAK_TRUCK_CRASH?SITE=PAPIT&SECTION=BUSINESS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

At least Mooman walks the walk. Each year the N&S Office Car Special passes my house on the way to the Kentucky Derby and I'm pretty sure that the OCS is a regular at the Masters as well.

Perhaps a little James Madison, principal author of the Constitution, could be of help here: Seems to me he would have disagreed with you.

Actually, as noted by others, 3C was first proposed by a Republican administration. That is the real irony, as are the number of politicians who were in favor of TARP until they opposed it.

On what basis are you claiming that the model used by Amtrak was a "one-size-fits-all" model? Transportation planning models are designed to be dynamic to address the differences between various proposed projects. More to the point, if you are going to argue, as Harris does, that the model is inaccurate in its projections you should be prepared to point out why you think that it is. Simply saying "no one will ride it" and "it'll cost to much" may be playing to a certain constituency who would rather let someone else do their thinking for them but we are paying our politicians to make informed decisions, not decisions which ignore what data we do have in favor of an ideology. As I said, there are various projection models used by transportation planners which are widely accepted both by engineers and by zoning and planning boards. If Harris wants to point to a method that he considers more accurate for Ohio let him do so and be prepared to defend it. Right now he is simply criticizing something with which he does not agree but has no basis in fact to argue. Instead of accepting your approach that we should be looking to sell 3C on other grounds why aren't we (meaning the citizens of Ohio) forcing the politicians to acknowledge what we already have done (and paid for), and provide us with reasoned and informed criticism, if they are capable of it.

And what, specifically, about the Amtrak projections (and the process of making them), do you find insufficient? All methodologies for projecting usage, ridership, etc., have built into them assumptions as well as limitations. That is why they are called "projections". And, as we have seen, sometimes expectations are exceeded and sometimes not. But if we waited until we had complete certainty, we would never do anything. The model used by Amtrak was developed by AECOM, one of the nation's largest engineering and transportation planning firms, and has been used, successfully, in other projects both in the US and overseas. So what, specifically, is wrong with it or does Harris just want to keep doing studies until he gets one that agrees with him?

Understood. My point was a little more subtle, specifically, that as an example of private enterprise freed from onerous government regulation, the railroads should be a poster child for American political conservatism. Yet SB 116 is clearly anti-railroad in that it puts the burden of proof on the railroads in disputes regarding ROW maintenance and safety.

Not to belabor a point that is getting far afield of 3C, there are a few points worth remembering. First, the days of the Robber Barons are over, not that this is particularly good since, in their heyday, the railroads were one of the country's largest employers. Today's railroads are not "widows and orphans" but they are businesses that need to make a profit and pay taxes to every municipality in which they have a right of way. Businesses looking to remain profitable have to look at all costs including the cost of complying with mandates. While I agree that under the old system, the municipalities carried the burden of financing the maintenance/upgrade and getting paid on the back end the new system, potentially, swings to far the other way in absolving the municipality for any responsibility. All the muni needs to do is notify the railroad that they desire improvements and if they don't like the response they can file a complaint with the PUC. Ignoring, for a moment, the likelihood that the tracks existed long before the municipality, this is a no-risk proposition for the municipality and has the potential to lead to nuisance complaints which will drive up costs. Not only that, but the law no longer requires what amounts to a legal notification to be made to an officer of the company. Now it is sufficient to notify a supervisor. If that same logic were applied to civil suits, it would be sufficient to tell a Wal-Mart manager that you were suing the company for sex discrimination. The sponsor of the bill noted that drafted this legislation in response to a complaint made by a single county engineer who was frustrated that the railroad was not responding to his requests to clear vegetation. It was not clear from the press release whether the county engineer was even justified in his requests, nonetheless, this becomes a problem requiring legislative action? Legislation should require a little more forethought than this.

No, the forfeiture refers to the penalty for non-compliance, not forfeiting the property. Furthermore, the law adds provision that each day in which the property is not in compliance represents a separate violation. The new law does not require that the notice of violation be directed to an officer of the corporation and, in fact, allows it to be delivered to a track supervisor. Under the old law, if the railroad didn't comply, the local jurisdiction had the obligation to perform the required work and then could pass the cost plus interest through to the railroad. Under the new law, the local authorities simply file a complaint with the PUC. What this does is increase the threat of nuisance complaints since the the municipality no longer has the burden of completing the work and then asking for reimbursement. Prior to this, the municipality needed to determine that the improvements/maintenance was necessary enough that they needed to do this, themselves.

So the supposedly "business friendly" Republicans are now going to subject the railroads to the whims of every jurisdiction through which pass it's tracks? A cynical interpretation would even be worse. Gee, and this would have nothing to do with the fact that this is a mid-term election year, would it? Of course, I'd be happy if there was a complete ban on the use of taxpayer money to create any sign which could be used for political purposes (including signs welcoming people to Ohio which have the name of the governor). But a counter argument could be made that such signs are necessary to inform the people how, where and by whom their money is being spent

Huh? I'm not hammering "the least controversial aspect" of your post (if I knew what it was). I assume that you mean to say that the lack of local transit funding will somehow hamper 3C. I don't, necessarily, accept this but this but I won't argue it as it is a chicken and egg issue. One might, just as easily, assert that 3C will stimulate the development of collateral, feeder, transit systems and there would be experience to back that up. You do, however, repeat this claim: Fine. How? How is Ohio different in a way that doesn't favor this undertaking? Let's see some facts so that there is something other than your opinion to debate. There is no point in "engaging" ideas if they are not grounded in fact. We might as well debate what Ohio would be like if cars had warp drive.

An assertion, not a fact. Back up your assertions with facts. Again, apples and oranges. Are municipalities linked by 3C likely to have in place all of the feeder systems likely necessary to maximize utilization on Day 1? Probably not. Newark Airport was built LONG before commuter rail made it possible to get there. Same with O'Hare. So what? Again, facts, not opinions, please. It sounds interesting to say it but until you document what makes Ohio different from any other state that has tried this approach, your assertions have no more weight than anyone else's.

In logic, this is known as the "straw man fallacy"; you misrepresent your opponent's position and then argue against it. No one has said "America's current intercity rail system works so well". In fact, it is pretty much admitted by proponents of investment in passenger rail that it doesn't work well, which is why we need greater investment. What has been said, and which is provable, is that successful models of intercity passenger rail built using an incremental approach exist and these models suggest that a similar experience may been seen with the 3C Quick Start in Ohio. If you want to argue against that, fine, but then you must show evidence which has more weight that "I don't think that anyone will ride it."

I don't disagree with the sentiment that the official promotion of this project has been lackluster. I also wouldn't disagree that Strickland and Molitaris should be arming themselves with some of the talking points contained in the opinion pieces posted by KJP and others instead of trotting out the same old rhetoric. But the experience of other states where modest intercity rail projects have resulted in significant public and private investment, increased ridership and increased capacity is hardly tangential unless you assume that Ohioans are unique among Americans in their preferences for transportation. In point of fact, to accept the worst case scenario that the naysayers are putting forth, that no one will ride it and it will drain millions of dollars, annually, from the state coffers with no appreciable benefits, you have to take, as a matter of fact, the notion that what has worked, elsewhere, cannot work in Ohio. And then, of course, you'd have to prove it. Under the current plan, Ohio will get $400 million over the next three years, if it goes forward with the entire project. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Ohio is on the hook for $17 million a year for 20 years (in 2010 dollars), that means that Ohio is being given $400 million, today, for which it will only have to "pay back" $340 million over 20 years. In other words, the state, at worst, nets $60 million. Who wouldn't take an offer like that?

In Oklahoma and Texas? I was in London when the beef tallow scandal hit the McDonald's (which was advertising vegetarian entries for the Indian customers but using beef tallow to flavor the French Fries). And I was at least half serious. I can see groups of people (vegetarians, PETA, etc.), boycotting ALL Amtrak trains (not just Texas and Oklahoma), because they use animal products for fuel. There is not much sense in alienating a subset of the population when the experiment is really about biofuels and just about any fat will do. Sell it to the truckers, instead!

Yikes! Can you imagine the impact on vegetarian passengers. Biofuels, yes, but I think that you risk alienating a growing group of supporters by using animal fat for fuel.

The 3C, yes. But the full Ohio Hub plan considered many other routes: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/Documents/OHIO_HUB_Alternative_Routes_Station_Locations2.pdf And, remember, that once momentum has begun, just like with the Interstate, we are likely to see many more routes put in place.

Ken: Understood. But I must admit to being somewhat underwhelmed that their only mention of the Keystone Corridor West* was to mention that Conrail had eliminated two of the four tracks suggesting that this ROW could be used for passenger travel, but then said nothing more about it And their brief mention of the Capitol Limited from DC to Pittsburgh suggested that they had all but given up on making any improvements to this segment. There was only slight mention of Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Cleveland and no mention of the Panhandle Line. And for this they met for over a year! *When it was initially proposed, it was simply the Keystone Corridor but I guess it is a little more honest of them to recognize that there are really two corridors since Harrisburg->West seems to be the ugly stepsister of Harrisburg-Philly.