Eigth and State

I went shopping at one of the few remaining businesses on Elm Street the other day and couldn't help feeling completely depressed that about 90% of the storefronts on that street are either boarded up, vacant, or used for some other use if not outright abandoned. C-Dawg said it best on a previous post: if neglected buildings in Over-the-Rhine aren't addressed really soon, we are going to lose a lot of them in the coming decade or two. Once that the building deteriorates enough to let in water, the damage comes quickly. Sadly, even if the streetcar is tremendously successful in bringing in new development and redevelopment, it might already be too late.

I still think there's a bigger issue at work over Kasich's moves, and that is distribution of power. Whether the 3-C is a good idea for Ohio or not is secondary to whether or not Ohio should let some federal agency determine what goes on in Ohio. Kasich is saying "We don't want some bureaucrat in Washington telling us how to spend our money." Now, the trouble is, that once money leaves Ohio in the form of federal taxes, Ohio really doesn't have any say in how it is spent, so the $400 million wasn't Ohio's money anyway. But how can Ohio keep more money under local control by reducing federal taxes if Ohio participates in feeding on the federal treasury? In my humble opinion, this is a political move on the part of Kasich for state's rights as much or more than it is about transportation. I don't think he's as stupid as he is made out to be.

^The 3-C is less blatant than other wealth transfer programs, but it will still transfer wealth from one group to another. Even if the design and construction contracts are competitively bid, it will result in a trasfer of wealth from taxpayers to the construction industry. There could be a net positive or net negative benefit from this. If there is a net benefit, then the decision to build the 3-C could be said to be a good one. If there is not a net benefit, i.e. the construction industry makes a profit but no one rides it because it is too slow, then the decision could be said to be a bad one. As a contractor, the decision is swayed by who you are and what you specialize in. Most contractors would rather be a millionaire first and ride the train second. Since most contractors at present are set up to build highways, not railroads, most contractors will favor building more highways instead of rail, because it increases their chances of becoming a millionaire. (If you just spent a million dollars on a paving machine, you would prefer that your next job is a highway job, so you don't have to put the paving machine in the garage and spend another million on a cross-tie laying machine.) Thus, the highway lobby is going to lend it's support to more highways, and the rail lobby to rail. Since there a lot more highway contractors than rail contractors, (and they vote, in addition to providing other support) the highway has the advantage. Now, a balanced transportation system is better than one that favors highways exclusively. I know that, and you know that. Most of the forumers on this board know that. But the highway lobby doesn't know that, or if they do, they support highways for another reason, namely, that they just invested a million dollars in that paving machine. What is good for one is not necessarily good for all.

Ah, but look at Kasich's next move. The media is reporting that he is going after the state's prevailing wage law. That is ALL ABOUT transfer of wealth, and furthermore, the 3-C would have been subject to Ohio's prevailing wage law. It is obvious that the 3-C is not just about transportation.

Earlier in this thread I posted a comment about the emphasis on job creation rather than mobility, environmental benefits, or other reasons to build the 3-C. What did the press release say? "Ohio’s Rail Funds will be Given to California, Florida, Others to Create Jobs" The real purpose of public projects is not necessarily to provide some public benefit, but to transfer wealth from one group to another. This forum, having a lot of urban planner types, tends to focus on the technical aspects of the project, when the motivations of the politicians on both sides are clearly political.

Fort Recovery was also one of the corner points on the Greenville Treaty Line.

^The 3-C thread invariably drifts into a rail vs highway argument because the proposed 3-C is in direct competition with Ohio's highways, not just for ridership but for funding as well.

Niko, there a flaw in your argument that also leads to a reason why the Republicans and Kasich don't favor rail. "3C is estimated to create 8,000 new jobs." I realize that this has been widely reported and you are just repeating it. The key word is "new." The question is whether or not the jobs needed to support the 3-C are truely new jobs or just displaced from somewhere else. If the 3-C really reduces the need for driving as proponents claim, then it will also reduce the need to manufacture, maintain, and fuel automobiles. That is, if 40,000 riders a day, or whatever the number is, take the train instead of driving, then an equivalent number of automobiles must be taken off the road. Fewer miles driven equates to fewer cars manufactured, fewer automobiles repaired, fewer tires sold and installed, fewer fuel stops with associated food purchases, and so on. So, the 3-C proponents can claim that the 3-C will reduce the need for driving, assuming that total passenger miles including both the 3-C and highways remain about constant. They can also claim that the 3-C will provide 8000 new jobs related to the passenger railroad; but they shouldn't make both claims at the same time. This brings up the "made work" problem. Republicans in general are not in favor of "making work" for the purpose of keeping people employed. They believe that the private sector should keep people employed, not government. They see 8000 new government jobs as a disadvantage, not a benefit. I realize that not all of those 8000 jobs will be government employees, but if they are contractors for the government, then they might as well be. In my humble opinion, the proponents have their best chance of selling the 3-C by promoting improved mobility, not by promoting creation of jobs or reduction of the need for driving.

CSX has published a policy that says that CSX does not favor passenger trains and freight trains on the same right of way. CSX says that they prefer passenger trains and freight trains on completely separate rights of way. Passenger trains are light and fast, and require a high degree of track maintenance because accidents at high speed are unforgiving. Freight trains are heavy and slow and wear the track out but can also tolerate a track that is not in perfect alignment. A passenger train travelling at 120 mph travels 2 miles in one minute, or 20 miles in 10 minutes. In order to preserve a 10-minute operating headway, the next 20 miles of track in front of a passenger train must be clear. That is an awful lot of track that can't be used by freight trains!

:-D

"Eighth and State, have you driven through Europe?" Never have. I took the train. :-)

I've got a Victor Adding Machine very similar to the one in your photo. It weighs about 20 pounds, and it still works. According to Wikipedia, the Victor company of Chicago started manufacturing adding machines in 1918 and eventually morphed into an electronic calculator and computer manufacturer. Undoubtedly the original adding machine was manufactured in the United States, and contained about 20 pounds of steel. Chances are that modern calculators are manufactured overseas and contain less than one pound of plastic. The adding machine sort of tells the story of those abandoned factories.

I looked up a comparison between the United States and Germany from the CIA world factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ United States Population 310,232,863 Airports with paved runways 5194 (0.000017 per person) Railways 226,427 km (0.0007 per person) Total Paved Roadways 4,374,784 km (0.014 per person) Expressways 75,238 km (0.0002 per person) Germany Population 82,282,988 Airports with paved runways 330 (0.0000040 per person) Railways 41,896 km (0.00051 per person) Total Paved roadways 644,480 km (0.0078 per person) Expressways 12,645 km (0.00015 per person) On a per-capita basis, the U.S. exceeds Germany on all counts: the U.S. has about 4 times the number of airports with paved runways, a little bit more length of railroads, about twice the length of total paved roads, and about 30% more length of expressways than Germany. In the U.S., the ratio of roads to railroads is 19.3 to 1. In Germany, the ratio of roads to railroads is 15.4 to 1. That's a significant difference, but much closer than expected.

I think ColDayMan should visit the museum and provide a photo tour. :-D

^There are numerous posts on this forum claiming that highways as they are today do not support themselves. They are subsidized not only with gas tax revenues but with other public funds as well. If we did not subsidize highways, they would deterioate for lack of maintenance and then, yes, passenger railroads could operate at a profit. I am convinced that if we could turn back the clock to 1950 and proceed to upgrade railroads INSTEAD of constructing the interstates, that the United States would have an effective passenger rail system comparable to Europe's by this time, although Europe's geography favors rail a little better than ours does. But of course, we can't turn back the clock. Given that we already have the interstates, are choices are limited. As I see it, our choices are: Abandon the interstates and build rail. Maintain the interstates and don't build rail. Maintaining the interstates AND building rail is not a real option. We can't afford to maintain two primary systems, and there is no support for it. Plus, highways and rail are not very compatible. Highways require lots of land for parking. Rail requires tight urban environments without parking. For whatever reason, the United States chose to invest in highways instead of rail, and it is very, very hard to reverse that decision. That doesn't mean that rail can't work in some places.

If the batteries are really heavy, then this vehicle conceivably could take more energy to run. It is going to take a lot of energy to climb the hill to uptown. That should definitely be a consideration.

^- Excellent post jjakucyk.

^-So you are saying that if the State of Ohio isn't interested, then the cities of Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, and Cleveland should get together and find a way to get it running? I wonder if State Law allows it.

Notice step #27 AND step #42. Looks like they include a drive in Hawaii.

Have DeutcheBahn operate it. They run a first-class operation. :-D

^-The difference is that the Portland route doesn't have a better alternative.

^Read my question again. Is there any reason why a private company couldn't operate the 3-C with or without funding from the feds? So, the State of Ohio led by Kasich isn't interested. If someone else could accept $400 million from the feds, could it be done? Just asking. And by the way, a private company COULD operate I-71 if the law allowed it. There are, in fact, a few privatly operated highways in this country.

Not meaning to sound like a libertarian anarchist or anything, but is there a reason why a private company can't initiate and operate the 3-C line, with or without funding from the feds? KJP could be chairman of the board. :wink:

^Or, Urban Ohio forumers could build an HO scale model of the proposed streetcar, complete with existing buildings and future development along the route. Incidently, a line from The Banks to the Zoo will be 120 feet long at HO scale, and the experience will show just how absurd the zig-zag route is.

^Get something running! Put a diesel streetcar on the track by the boathouse, or alternatively, an electric streetcar towing a generator. The tourist traffic alone will keep the ridership going for a week at least.