neony

Some of you may have already seen this, but please get in touch with Ohio senators even if you are in another state. This affects all of us and our desire for more east-west service along the Lake Shore route. It's a brazen attempt to kill any discussion about passenger rail in Ohio and is likely being orchestrated by railroad lobbyists. I have already contacted my state senator, Jerry Cirino, who sits on the Senate Transportation committee. I will be in touch with other potential allies as well. AAO is calling this a shocking betrayal and an outrage. I have been in touch with AAO Chair Mitch Radakovich, who says there is considerable media interest in this development and that he has personally called the offices of every Ohio state senator. We should hear more today. If you plan to make contacts, please do so as soon as possible, since the Ohio Senate is planning to finalize its bill by Friday. Ohio has always been difficult, but if this happens, it will be a permanent road block between the Midwest and the East Coast. Here's a link to the AAO press release: https://www.allaboardohio.org/posts/passenger-rail-excluded-from-ohio-senate-budget Thanks to Boomerang_Brian for posting this.

I never knew how much land along the Lakefront is publicly owned. It seems to me that this is an opportunity too good to pass up and would justify an extension of the RTA Waterfront line east. It all makes so much sense!

Just now seeing this and we have discussed it many times before, but as a resident of Wickliffe, I'd use this. In fact, I'd probably stop driving downtown for the vast majority of my trips. Ditto Ohio City or the airport. The way things are currently configured, I have little choice but to drive. Even Laketran is useless, since it does not operate to downtown throughout the day. Really, the Red Line should be extended at both ends, at least to Willoughby and Berea.

Ah, but you could dedicate the money to passenger projects which also benefit the freight railroads, i.e. build the Porter IN-Chicago IL south of the lake bypass to get passenger trains on their own tracks and free capacity for NS freight traffic. Make it a win-win.

I have since found a source for this information. All railroads were obligated to give the government a 50% discount, which did not end until 1945, or 76 years after the transcontinental railroad was complete. At the time the book (The Story of American Railroads, by Stewart H Holbrook) was written in 1947, it was estimated that lands which granted to the railroads were worth about $127 million, but the loss of revenue resulting from the 50% discount might have amounted to $900 million. Land grant railroads might have profited, but in the end, Uncle Sam drove a hard bargain.

NO. That old land grant argument does not wash. Only about five percent of railroads were built with land grants and in exchange, the entire industry was obligated to move mail and troops at vastly discounted rates. The railroads paid back far more than they benefited, to the point where this requirement became a burden and was finally abolished in the late 1930's. I might add that the settlement of the west would have been impossible if railroads weren't offered an incentive to build in what was then a wilderness. I might add that governments historically snatched from the railroads with one hand and gave generously to their competitors with the other. In one case, a ticket tax was imposed on railroads as WW II emergency measure to discourage unnecessary travel, but this was not abolished until 1962, by which time the passenger train was in serious trouble. In at least a couple of other cases (Toledo OH and Albany NY) The tax bill for train stations suspiciously approximated the subsidy to municipal airports. Air mail was also subsidized. The railroads were also heavily regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission, but competing modes were not and they lost market share because of this. The last part of your message is correct though. We need real reform.

I think that goes back to the fact that rail infrastructure was privately owned, so public officials didn't have to think about it much. Ditto the public. Fast forward and it's still a leap for some to think we need to invest in railroads, even now.

What you miss is that the development pf every mode is the result of massive public investment. That's right, PUBLIC investment. In fact, noted conservative Paul Weyrich said it best: "Today's transportation system is not a free market outcome. Rather, it's the result of massive intervention by all levels of government on behalf of the auto and airplane". My point is: why should rail be any different? Cause and effect: We built the Interstates on the public dime and that made it impossible for privately operated railroads to make a profit carrying passengers, so the trains went away.

Yes, following this logic, all highways would be privatized and your car would trip an electronic reader to begin the billing process every time you back out of your driveway. That would go over like a lead balloon!

Some years ago, I found that about 10% of Ohio's households did not own an auto and that if that percentage was subtracted from the ODOT budget at the time, the annual amount for non-highway surface transportation would have been about $750 million annually. Imagine what could have been done! It would be interesting to crunch today's numbers to see what we'd get now. I also didn't know anything abut the Ohio Public Works Commission until I spotted a sign for a road improvement, saying it was funded by a grant thru the OPWC. Again, we should pay much closer attention to it and start to demand that public transportation be funded thru it. Here's a link: https://publicworks.ohio.gov/

I remember finding out about the Ohio Public Works Commission years ago. It's another faceless entity which steers money to roads, but we should pay closer attention to its doings and who was behind this bond issue initiative. Public transportation should have been a part of the mix. As it is, I won't vote for it.

We will have trails, but not trains. Disappointing but not surprising.

Long distance trains have been singled out as loss leaders for years, even by Amtrak, so anything could happen. This is in spite of the fact that these trains carry many people and make state supported service more viable because they provide connections. As for me, I'm keeping a wary eye out as events unfold.

I can't say I'm sorry to see Gardner go, but his replacement could be worse. On the other hand, the new Trump nominee to the Amtrak board is widely seen as being very pro-rail. Right now, I'm in a wait-and-see posture. Anything could happen at this point, tho I have the feeling that long distance trains might become a sacrificial lamb. Steady as she goes...

An autocentric idiot move. Way to go!