gildone

mistergoodday: exactly about the walk from UC station. It's a very unpleasant and unsafe feeling-walking environment between the station and Euclid. PS: I just realized I said I support a stop at Murray Hill, I meant Mayfield. Oops... I went back and corrected my earlier post...

mytwosense: I know what you mean about the Clinic's buildings being an invisible barrier. I have a parent who has been in and out of the CC for 2 1/2 years. I would often take the Red Line to Univ. Circle and walk to the Clinic to visit (faster than the #6, but that was before I figured out the 9X). There was no easy way to get into the Clinic from Carnegie. I often had to go in via the Continental Hotel and take the elevator up to the Sky Walk to get inside so I could get to the building where she was. It's such a pedestrian unfriendly environment. If Euclid is going to be down to one lane in each direction for driving, that's pretty good traffic calming in and of itself. The main reason I might hesitate to support (though I'm still undecided) the proposal is because the CC is trying to get in the game during the 9th inning. They should have been at spring training.

Yes indeed it would. I don't necessarily mind the walk to Little Italy from Univ. Cirl, but I would go to Little Italy a lot more often, patronizing the various restaurants and establishments there if there were a stop at Mayfield I'm sure many more people would too.

They certainly came to the table late. Where were they when the Silver Line plans were being made? The Clinic can often be quite aloof. Their billing department is one of the places where the proof of this is glaringly obvious, but I'm digressing and getting off the subject...

Loved this quote from Fannie! I have no opinion one way or another yet on the Clinic proposal, but what's the big inconvenience? With Carnegie and Chester, it's easy to bypass the Clinic if you're driving through. If you're going to the Clinic area, what's the difference?

clvlndr: the particular day I was going to the Indians game with family, I think the only station that wasn't staffed on the west side was Puritas (though maybe W. 65th too). What the heck difference would one more ticket agent have made? The trains were running packed.

Couldn't agree with you more C-Dawg. I lived in the Toledo area, well actually Bowling Green, for 3 1/2 years (94-97). I liked the fact that the freeway wasn't too close to downtown. I'm glad to see the downtown area improving (was last there about 18 months ago, I think).

I guess that means they better "call before you dig" Seriously, of all the transit proposals in recent years in Columbus, I believe this one has the best chance of success. Last I heard COTA wasn't going to be involved in this. I hate to say it, but this is probably why it will succeed. I'd love to see this project coupled with some sort of renewable energy effort to supply the electricity for the line(s), or at least a portion of it. This may be a way to diversify the funding sources for the project (Third Frontier funds?). Maybe they could team up with Green Energy Ohio somehow too.

I haven't always agreed with Joe, but every now and then he hits one out of the park. This is one of those times. I love the comment about ""minuscule courage among national leaders has led us to the current, precarious state of affairs."

It was one of several things mentioned to me, but I cannot recall the others. However, I remember my reaction at the time which was that none of the things mentioned made much sense at all.

Not sure what it would have been called way back when, but I thought it's latest iteration was the "Buckeye Basin Greenbelt Parkway"

Very correct KJP. It's past being worth the time and energy...

Ok. Thanks. That's the first time I've heard it referred to in this way. Guess I learned something new! I was asked to show my receipt all the time when I used the Metro in Milan, for example. I liked the concept because boarding and using the system was a breeze. I talked to someone at RTA about this. The implementation of proof of payment is getting bogged down in bureacratic discussion. For example, lthere is concern about people who have no address how, so how do you follow up with a fine if they are caught without a ticket? I don't recall the other nonsense that this person mentioned is going on in the internal discussions. I look at it this way. You are going to have a few people get away with not paying now and then, but at the same time, they'll have reduced costs as far as less ticket agents (though that will be offset, at least partially, by having ticket inspectors). The fines will make up the rest. I would definitely expect ridership to improve because it will make using the system easier and make the service faster. For example, having a train load of people on their way to a ball game frustrated as hell because RTA had a ticket agent at Brookpark (and thus easy, quick boarding) but did not have one at Puritas where a bunch more people wanted to go to the game. Then the trains start backing up because boarding was excruciatingly slow doesn't do much for RTA's image. I experienced this a couple of years ago. Some passenger said "never again". Duh. Indians game today, put ticket agents at all the stations, or better yet, just switch to "proof of payment" and get it over with! The same goes for buses like the #6: combine no light timing on Euclid to speak of with a heavily used, pay as you board bus, you get slow service with buses bunching up, etc. Thank goodness the Euclid Corridor is on its way... Anyway, back to proof of payment... the person at RTA with whom I spoke was frustrated by the bureaucratic discussion I referred to.

CtownD: I'm not familiar with what you mean by "proof of payment". Any chance you could elaborate for me? Thanks.

Amen, Noozer.

When you actually talk to people at the Toledo Port Authority like I have on several occasions, then get back to me. Passenger traffic deteriorated at Toledo Express because with Detroit Metro so close the market wasn't there. I lived in the Toledo area in the mid 1990's. I never flew out of Toledo. It was cheaper to fly out of Detroit Metro. You don't know your history well in this instance. There was a lot of lobbying by the fledgling aviation industry for public funding. The private sector was unwilling to absorb the full risk of the huge capital outlays necessary to build the needed infrastructure. They lobbied hard for many years. That said, I have no problem with the government getting involved in the funding of transporation infrastructure. I repeat, I have no problem with funding aviation. I have a problem with the lack of balance in how they continue to fund transportation to this day and I have a problem with the complete lack of a balanced, integrated approach to transporation planning. This does not mean that passenger rail didn't didn't then and still doesn't today have an important role to play in our transportation system. Rail became antiquated because the government chose to fund aviation and highways and let rail atrophy. The railroads knew what the bulk of the future of passenger rail was-- fast, multi-frequency, regional service. As I said, it was the public purse the private railroads could not compete with. The ORDC has had some preliminary economic development numbers for a few years now. The detailed economic study will be complete within the next few to several months. Air service isn't going to do much for developing downtown Youngstown. And as I've been trying to say, I agree to disagree with those here who think aviation is the better economic development engine for Youngstown. Freight and charter service is appropriate for Youngstown. Common carrier service is not-- Again, I agree to disagree with you all on this.

This is blown way out of proportion. The western railroads did indeed get things like land grants (which about half of the track-miles benefitted from) and all railroads got some assistance with things like tunnels, but by and large, the tracks were laid and stations, depots and yards built with private dollars. In addition: --The railroads paid (and still pay) property taxes on the infrastructure they built and maintain. --In exchange for the land grants,etc the railroads received in the 19th century, they had to give the federal government discounted shipping rates in exchange. In the 1930's it was determined that the railroads re-paid those costs many times over. --As for 1920-2006, what the railroads have gotten from the federal government is low interest loans and the totals even for those have been dwarfed by the what has been given to the aviation system. The FACT of the matter is that aviation has received far more government support than the railroads have for the past 80 years. I wouldn't call them ridiculous. Airports, like all transportation infrastructure, isn't cheap. And, they are still subsidized (and again, just to be clear, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with subsidies). Nothing you have said has changed the fact that federal transportation policy has largely ignored passenger rail and we have an antiquated system that some third world countries would be ashamed of. You get what you pay for. And who's crying anything? If you have to resort to statements like that, it weakens your position. And still, there are cities on the rail lines that do not have air service. One of reasons for this is because air service isn't appropriate for all cities. Besides, they have still spent the money necessary to have a modern passenger rail system. The US has not and continues to refuse to. Nothing you said here changes this. Every mode has a role to play including passenger rail, even in the US.

You seem to only be able to make your argument based on a phony comparison. Again, the Ohio Hub isn't going to offer one train at crappy hours on congested, antiquated infrastructure. One train at crappy hours on congested antiquated infrastruacture cannot compare with multi-frequency, 110 mph daylight service of the Ohio Hub. It appears that you have no concept of an integrated, multi-modal transportation system and what it means economically, what it means for mobility, and what it means for maximum value returned for each public dollar spent.

By this statement you are trying to prove your point with phony comparisons. You CANNOT compare the Three Rivers train to the Ohio Hub. One train at crappy hours on congested antiquated infrastruacture cannot compare with multi-frequency 110 mph daylight service of the OHio Hub. Another phony comparison. You just don't get it. You get what you pay for when it comes to transporation. When it comes to rail, we've never paid what it takes to have a modern system. First, the numbers are there. Read the OHio Hub study at ORDC's website. They also have some preliminary economic data. The detailed economic study will be completed in the next few months. Sad? What's sad is that you have to resort to petty insults. I haven't done that, nor do I plan to.

I was speaking in the proper context and my phraseology was not misleading. You chose to see things that weren' there. And, I hate to disappoint you, but they ARE subsidies. When the federal government finances something or helps to finance something that the private sector benefits from, it's a subsidy. The example I gave, the $2 billion per year out of general revenues for the air traffic control is a subsidy to the aviation system and an indirect operating subsidy to any private company that benefits from it. There are other examples, but I see no need in belaboring this point any further. But comparing the current size of both systems doesn't put it in the proper context. The current size of the US passenger rail system is the direct result of the policy and funding choices made by the federal government. You have to look at the past 90 years of how the aviation system, highways system, and railway system have been financed. Highways and aviation were financed publically and the passenger rail system privately. Railroads build, maintain, and pay taxes on their infrastructure. In the context of the pre-Amtrak intercity passenger rail system, they could not compete in the intercity passenger market because the federal government was pouring money into the competing modes. The railroads knew then their infrastructure needed to be modernized if they were to keep the passenger side of the business viable, but they also knew they couldn't compete with the public purse that was funding the other modes. So in the 60's they began doing everything they could to kill the business. By the time Amtrak was formed, the system was a mere skeleton of its former self and has always been given barely enough money to limp along year after year. It's now the 21st century and what few passenger trains that are left are running on mostly obsolete infrastructure and the government, thus far and to the detriment of the nation, refuses to invest in its modernization. That's why the subsidies are so puny compared to aviation. Still, the aggregate lifetime net profit of this segment of the industry, over it's decades long lifetime has been zero, which was my original point that because of this, Warren Buffet does not invest in common-carrier airlines. That, and without subsidies to the aviation system, no airline company would be profitable. This is only true if you ignore the economic benefits of the Ohio Hub: improving mobility, increasing total transportation capacity (freight and passenger), connecting downtown business centers, attacting downtown development, creating jobs, attracting companies and the jobs that go with them to Youngstown and other on-line cities, business for Ohio's more than 120 companies in the rail supply industry, increase in property values etc. etc. As for Toledo, that's not an appropriate place for a passenger airlines either. I came to this conclusion after talking with someone (near the top of the food chain) at the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority. They aren't trying to develop that airport as a passenger airport because it's far more important as a freight hub. They see the Ohio Hub as the more effective of the two options for economic development driver for the passenger end of things. They don't come by these conclusions lightly either. No it wasn't and yes you did. I was refering to those Amish who don't fly. (For example, did I use the word Mennonite anywhere?) Again, you wanted to see something that wasn't there. Can we drop this now and stop beating this dead horse? It is not insignificant. A significant number of senior citizens want the option of trains. A lot of them don't want to fly anymore if they don't have to. In fact, a few years ago, the AARP heard from enough seniors on this issue that they put passenger rail in their issues book which is essentially the list of issues that AARP lobbies congress for on behalf of their members. Then there are the disabled. But I won't belabor this further either. Long story short, the it's not as insignificant of a number as you assume. On a different angle: the population at-large wants trains. There have been many state and national surveys taken over the past several years and they all show that a clear majority of people want modern intercity passenger rail. Most polls have shown roughly 70%, though some have been as low as 60%. I referred to the segments who can't or won't fly because these groups most definitely want trains. The Ohio Hub will do a better job of this. I stated some of the reasons above. So, we agree to disagree on this point.

Because people want choices. They don't always want to pound the interstates and they don't always want to be shoe-horned into an airplane seat. Where fast, frequent, efficient rail services are offered, people will and DO use trains, even in the US.

You get what you pay for. Try giving aviation less than 1% of the federal transporation budget and watch how fast it would fail.

Where did I say or imply that this wasn't money well spent? NOWHERE. Rail subsidies vs. aviation subsidies was brought up in the post I originally responded to . My point was that no airline company would be profitable without them and I was trying to put the subsidy issue in the proper context. Would you please stay on the subject and not distort my statements? Why are you putting words in my mouth? Where did I say or even imply anything remotely like this? Again, a point was made about subsidies and my point was that you cannot directly compare US airline subsidies and Amtrak subsidies because it's not an apples to apples comparison. You have to put the data in context. Again, please stay on subject and don't distort my statements. A couple of issues here. The Acela trains are doing well and they are very popular with the public-- given what Amtrak has to work with as far as infrastructure and the political gamesmanship that went on that screwed up the construction of the Acela trainsets (the Amtrak model for passenger rail needs serious restructuring and a lot of capital investment, but this is a totally different subject). The NEC needs a lot of capital investment in order for it to be a truly state-of-the-art system. A more appropriate comparison for this part of the discussion is the high speed rail routes in Europe that have displaced flights to the point that airlines through-ticket passengers on the trains. The US Aviation system has, for the most part, received the public investment needed to keep the infrastructure modern and in good repair. Rail never has and the result is that our rail system, especially our passenger rail system, is in deplorable condition. High quality, modern transporation infrastructure costs money. Big money. How good of an aviation system would we have if it received less than 1% of the federal transportation budget like passenger rail does? Not very good at all and nowhere near modern. Again, I'm only trying to put the argument about rail vs. aviation as things currently exist in US in the proper context. I was speaking of common carrier passenger airlines, not a fleet of corporate and charter jets which is what NetJets is. This thread is about common-carrier passenger services, so I thought it was understood. I apologize. I'll state it more clearly this time: over it's lifetime, the common-carrier passenger airline industry has made ZERO money net. Buffet has not and does not invest in this segment of the industry. He has said so. . And I'm only saying that the best way to connect Youngstown to Ft. Lauderdale and a much larger number of destinations is with Ohio Hub trains to, for example, Hopkins Airport. I'm talking total economic return on investment. The Hub's economic study will be completed in the next few to several months, so you will see some numbers. I provided this as only ONE example, and one example ONLY. Yet you stretch and twist my statement to imply that I was saying they are the only ones. There are several segments of the population at large who cannot or do not want to fly. Why do you have to resort to distorting my statements to make your point? And I don't oppose aviation. Not one bit. It has an important role to play in a BALANCED national transportation system. Tell me what I said anywhere that implies the airline industry is unimportant? Tell me what I said anywhere that blatantly disregards aviation? Will you stop distorting my statements, please? All I'm saying is that IN MY OPINION, if public money is going to be expended, it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend it on air service in Youngstown when Hopkins, CAK, and Pittsburgh airports are not that far away and when the Ohio Hub can and will efficiently connect Youngstown area residents to a lot of air service offered by several airlines.

The subsidies to aviation are huge, and public expenditures over and above Aviation Trust Fund exceed Amtrak's annual subsidy many times over, and NO airline company would be "profitable" without them. In fact, the commercial passenger aviation industry, as a whole, has made ZERO money net over its lifetime-- subsidies ASIDE. Ask Warren Buffet why he has never invested in an airline company. It's not as easy to compare subsidies to Amtrak, for example, with subsidies to the aviation as you want it to be because a substantial chunk of the money given to Amtrak goes to pay for things that no airline company has on its balance sheet. For example: the air traffic control system receives about $2 billion per year from the federal government's general revenues. Part of Amtrak's annual subsidy goes to pay for their traffic control system on the Northeast Corridor. There is no airline company that has air traffic controllers and the capital investment in and maintenance of traffic control equipment on its balance sheet. No airline company employs people to maintain runways. Part of Amtrak's subisidy is to pay for maintenance-of-way crews on the NEC. Part of Amtrak's subsidy even goes to pay the retirement benefits for people who NEVER WORKED FOR THE COMPANY. No airline company has an expense like that on its balance sheet. So, if you are going to argue subsidies, get your facts straight. Passenger rail is a much better investment compared to, for example, short-haul flights when you have an honest apples-to-apples comparison. As for rail in Youngstown, public dollar for public dollar, the Ohio Hub will return far more to the local economy than a few short haul flights out of the airport and it will provide more mobility to area citizens because there are a lot of people who are unable to fly or don't fly for legitimate personal reasons (like Ohio's Amish population).

If you want to fly to Florida and points beyond from Youngstown, then the way to do it is to hop an Ohio Hub train to Cleveland Hopkins airport or to Pittsburgh with a shuttle connection to the Pittsburgh airport or to Detroit Metro.