If Cong.Jordan bases his stance on anything in the Buckeye Institute's so-called "study", he is an asbolute buffoon.

 

He is a buffoon, he refuses to listen to logic. Whenever I write him and ask him to support public transit, he says that we shouldn't have to give subsidies to transportation, as if highways and airports don't receive subsidies. I don't think that he will ever change his mind.

If Cong.Jordan bases his stance on anything in the Buckeye Institute's so-called "study", he is an asbolute buffoon.

 

He is a buffoon, he refuses to listen to logic. Whenever I write him and ask him to support public transit, he says that we shouldn't have to give subsidies to transportation, as if highways and airports don't receive subsidies. I don't think that he will ever change his mind.

 

Those who are in Rep. Jordan's district have two choices:

 

a) Try to make him see the light.

 

b) Work for his defeat in the next election.

 

Unfortunately, the Republican party is dominated by these types. :jo:

Perhaps it is time for some pro-transit GOPers to start making primary challenges. It obviously can't be the sole reason, but I think if a couple folks managed to knock off one of these anti-transit GOPers then the party might start to move. Even better would be a pro-transit GOPer that knocked off a Dem - talk about changing the political calculus.

Perhaps it is time for some pro-transit GOPers to start making primary challenges. It obviously can't be the sole reason, but I think if a couple folks managed to knock off one of these anti-transit GOPers then the party might start to move. Even better would be a pro-transit GOPer that knocked off a Dem - talk about changing the political calculus.

 

The problem with the GOP goes beyond this one issue. This is a party that has been taken over by far-right fringe elements. It's nowhere near mainstream anymore and that's an issue the party will have to come to grips with if it wants to win elections.

 

Still, your suggestion makes a lot of sense. There are some out there who get it and they should be sought out.

 

End of political commentary. Back to our regular programming.

Could Cong Steve LaTourette reach out to Jordan?  GOP'er who gets rail to GOP'er with no clue.

From the PD.....KJP, can you comment for once on Cleveland.com...?

 

 

 

Ohio communities lobby for passenger rail stops

Posted by Karen Farkas/Plain Dealer Reporter July 13, 2009 07:00AM

Categories: Real Time News

 

Grafton has joined communities across the state to lobby for a stop along a proposed passenger rail line.Communities of all sizes across the state are touting their best assets in hopes of being chosen as one of the stops for the proposed passenger rail line from Cleveland to Cincinnati.

 

more info at:

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/07/ohio_communities_lobby_for_pas.html

I moved Noozer's posting of this to the Cleveland - Pittsburgh thread because the article and certainly the comments that followed dealt with that corridor....

 

http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/524596.html?nav=5021&showlayout=0

 

Officials try to bring rail service back to the Valley

 

By RON SELAK JR. / Tribune Chronicle POSTED: July 12, 2009

 

The plan to connect Ohio's three largest cities by passenger rail could blossom into providing Ohioans the ability to travel to the four corners of the state and beyond, officials backing the plan say.

 

Known as the Three C corridor, linking Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati, is going to cost $250 million to $400 million to complete, and it would be considered the backbone of a system that might have connections to Warren and Youngstown.

 

''This is the spine, this is where it needs to grow from,'' said Stu Nicholson, spokesman for the Ohio Rail Development Commission.

 

 

.....

I don't understand the comment about taking money from highways. No one is saying that except a few extremist highway contractors. What is the city manager saying?

__________________

 

http://www.middletownusa.com/view_news.asp?a=4487

 

Middletown Community News

Middletown City Managers Weekly Update to Council July 10, 2009

Monday, July 13, 2009 9:58:43 AM - Middletown Ohio

 

Weekly Update to City Council

from the City Manager

July 10, 2009

 

Passenger Rail Service

We had a good meeting in Columbus with the Ohio Rail Commission. This project needs to jump through several more hoops before the funding is determined. Passenger Rail Service would be a great benefit to our city and conversely, we have a lot to offer as a stop. Proponents of the project seem to fall under the category of why take from our limited funds for state highways and give to the railroad project? Good points, all the way around. We will keep fighting for the rail service in Middletown.

I'm from the Mahoning Valley and would definitely ride a train from Cincinnati to Warren or Y-town to visit family in Niles. I commented on the article in the tribune to counter all the negative comments from people.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34736

 

Funding for Midwest high-speed rail facing tough competition, tight deadline

By Paul Merrion

July 13, 2009

 

(Crain's) - Illinois is facing stiff competition and a tight deadline to get a slice of $8 billion in stimulus funding available for high-speed rail.

 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Monday that 40 states requested funding for 270 rail improvement projects totaling $93 billion in preliminary applications filed last Friday. Final applications are due Aug. 24.

 

........

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/state-outlines-high-speed-passenger-rail-plans.html

 

State outlines high-speed passenger rail plans

July 14, 2009 11:19 AM

 

Express passenger trains traveling at top speeds of 220 m.p.h. between Chicago and St. Louis are included in Illinois' preliminary application for federal funding to build high-speed passenger rail corridors.

 

....

Village seeking a stop on proposed 3-C railway

 

Cindy Leise

 

The Chronicle-Telegram

 

WELLINGTON — Decades ago, this village was the first stop out of Cleveland when there was rail service between Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati.

 

Officials would like to return to those days and land a stop on the state’s proposed 3­C (Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati) Rail Corridor...

 

Here's the link to the above news story.....

 

http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2009/07/15/village-seeking-a-stop-on-proposed-3-c-railway/

 

Post edited 9-4-009 to comply with terms of use.

 

 

Here's the link to the above news story.....

 

http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2009/07/15/village-seeking-a-stop-on-proposed-3-c-railway/

.

^Obviously Steve Pyles meant the 1st stop will (likely) be Puritas, not Berea, and of course he must not know that the Red Line is heavy and not light rail.

Now the pressure is on to hang a bunch of ornaments on the Christmas tree.

 

Maybe the have a train set for express service and a train set for local, so all these stops wont make the thing too slow.

Sounds like all the pieces are falling into place, nicely.  I just hope: a) Cleveland can get moving planning/building a new downtown station that, hopefully, will tie into the new MMPI convention center, and b) those nutcases petitoning against a Cincy terminal will be reigned in.  They could screw things up for everybody, not just Cincy.

For details behind the press release, see:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Press%20Release%20Raw%20Data%20HSR.pdf

Note that Ohio has submitted for more than $5.8 billion, which includes project costs on routes that extend into other states.

 

Now for the press release:

 

http://www.fra.dot.gov:80/us/press-releases/249

 

FRA Receives 278 Pre-Applications for High-Speed Passenger Rail Funding

 

Contact: Mark Paustenbach

Telephone: 202-493-6024

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 (Washington DC) FRA Receives 278 Pre-Applications for High-Speed Passenger Rail Funding

WASHINGTON - U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced today that the Federal Railroad Administration has received 278 pre-applications for grant funding totaling $102 billion. The money will come from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail competitive grant program.

 

"The response has been tremendous and shows that the country is ready for high-speed rail," Secretary LaHood said. "It's time to look beyond our highways and invest in public transportation services like rail, which will enhance regional mobility and reduce our carbon footprint."

 

Pre-applications by region:

 

Northeast

oTotal Number of Pre-applications Submitted: 79

oTotal Requested Funds: $35 billion

 

South/Southeast

oTotal Number of Pre-applications Submitted: 44

oTotal Requested Funds: $16 billion

 

Midwest

oTotal Number of Pre-applications Submitted: 47

oTotal Requested Funds: $13 billion

 

West

oTotal Number of Pre-applications Submitted: 108

oTotal Requested Funds: $38 billion

 

Forty states and the District of Columbia filed pre-applications. While not all proposed projects can be funded, the Department will work with states and regions to identify priorities and prepare for ongoing high-speed passenger rail development.

 

Congress passed the Recovery Act, which included an $8 billion competitive grant program as a down payment to develop high-speed and intercity passenger rail networks. The President has proposed a continuing $1 billion annual investment to further this effort.

 

The Department of Transportation issued a strategic plan for high-speed rail in April 2009, followed by guidelines for states and groups of states to apply for the economic recovery money in June 2009. The Department expects to announce the first round of merit-based grants in the fall.

 

The final application deadline is August 24 for funding on individual projects and planning, and October 2 for corridor programs.

 

To learn more about President Obama's vision for high-speed rail in America, go to: http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31

 

###

Not sure where the FRA is coming up with 5.8-billion dollars for Ohio's stimulus request... Ohio's ask is only for the 3-C and the environmental review of the 7 high-speed rail corridors...which doesn't even amount to a half-billion.

 

[July 17, 2009] 

 

 

Pennsylvania, Ohio seek billions in federal stimulus money

 

Jul 17, 2009 (The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- Two states are seeking billions in federal stimulus money to link Pittsburgh to cities with high-speed rail service, officials said Thursday.

 

The Federal Railroad Administration released a list of states that submitted "pre-applications" for $8 billion set aside in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to plan and build high-speed rail connections between cities. The list has 278 applications worth $102 billion.

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2009/07/17/4277777.htm#

I wondered about that! Perhaps they totaled up all the projected Ohio Hub route capital costs that were listed in the EIS pre-application?

Union Terminal can't accommodate more than one train staying overnight, city architect Michael Moore has said, so adding "holding tracks" or even a new rail station might be needed.

 

The station location hasn't been decided, according to city officials. Union Terminal would require some upgrades. Two other possible sites for a new rail station are near Longworth Hall.

 

 

We are definitely going to need some local money on this project

I almost wonder if they double counted Ohio's connections to the Midwest Regional Rail and the "pre-apps" that were made for that.... as well as those in Pennsylvania.  :?

Ohio eyes highway ads to pay for passenger rail

By MATT LEINGANG, The Associated Press

Updated 4:25 PM Friday, July 17, 2009

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The $10 million that Ohio needs to operate a passenger train service linking its major cities would come from fees that restaurants, hotels and gas stations pay to advertise on blue highway exit signs, according to a preliminary proposal filed with the Federal Rail Administration.

 

Annual income from Ohio's highway advertising program would help operate Amtrak trains connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati, the pre-application filed by the Ohio Rail Development Commission says.

 

 

Find this article at:

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/ohio-news/ohio-eyes-highway-ads-to-pay-for-passenger-rail-209477.html

 

Since when is a voluntary advertising fee a tax?

___________________

 

State would use highway-sign tax to pay for trains

Friday,  July 17, 2009 1:30 PM

ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

COLUMBUS -- Ohio wants to use money collected from highway advertising to help pay for passenger rail service linking its major cities.

 

Documents filed with the Federal Rail Administration show for the first time how Ohio would pay to operate Amtrak trains connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati.

 

The estimated $10 million would come from fees that restaurants, hotels and gas stations pay to advertise on blue highway exit signs.

 

.......

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/07/17/train_tax.html?sid=101

If this proves to be a viable funding source (others should be considered too, such as from cost savings in reducing the state motor pool and having some state employees use the train instead for trips to conduct state business), then this will answer the major question which the Federal Railroad Administration is putting to all states hoping for passenger rail stimulus money. It's one thing to want the 100% federal share stimulus money, but if states can't answer how they'll financially sustain the train services, the feds won't even consider the funding application.

High-speed rail projects get boost from transportation spending bill OK'd by House panel

 

by Andrew Taylor / Associated Press

Friday July 17, 2009, 10:08 PM

 

WASHINGTON -- Funding for a signature high-speed rail initiative of President Barack Obama would get an enormous boost under a transportation spending bill approved Friday by a key House panel.

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/07/highspeed_rail_projects_get_bi.html

High-speed rail projects get boost from transportation spending bill OK'd by House panel

 

[...]

 

The measure also gives the money-losing Amtrak passenger railroad a $1.5 billion subsidy.

 

[...]

 

The free-spending culture of the committee was on display as well. Republican Tom Latham of Iowa identified almost $800 million worth of budget savings by lowering subsidies in the Department of Housing and Urban Development's program that guarantees reverse mortgages for seniors. Latham proposed slightly lowering the amounts of the federally insured mortgages to eliminate the need for the subsidies.

 

Democrats embraced the idea. But rather than returning the savings to taxpayers, they instead used the money to beef up funding for the Section 8 program.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/07/highspeed_rail_projects_get_bi.html

 

Nothing like good old editorialization..

It is ridiculous to cut money out of one program in an effort to "save," and then just redirect is somewhere else.

What about this for editorializing:

 

Obama had asked for $1 billion for construction of a new high-speed rail system and other intercity rail lines, which would come on top of $8 billion provided in Obama's economic stimulus bill in February.

 

But the Appropriations Committee provided $4 billion for the initiative as it approved a $123 billion measure funding transportation and housing programs. Rep. John Olver, D-Mass., said that the earlier appropriation had generated about $70 billion in grant requests for high-speed rail projects across the country.

 

Democrats turned back a GOP effort to take $3 billion of the rail money and deposit it in the Highway Trust Fund, which is expected to go broke next month.

 

The measure also gives the money-losing Amtrak passenger railroad a $1.5 billion subsidy.

 

So if the Highway Trust Fund is due to go broke next month, doesn't that make funding of roads a subsidy to a money-losing entity?

^ :-D

High-speed rail for Ohio estimated at $1.53 billion

Saturday,  July 18, 2009 3:06 AM

By James Nash

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Ohio's three largest cities can be connected by passenger trains that go 110 mph for $1.53 billion, according to the state's new application for federal stimulus money earmarked for high-speed rail.

 

Speedy trains connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati could be running as soon as 2016, the state's preliminary request for funding says.

 

......

 

http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/07/18/RAILPLAN.ART_ART_07-18-09_B1_01EGPQ5.html?sid=101

The Highway Trust Fund went bankrupt a while back -- September 2008. U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters requested $8 billion to keep it afloat. In other words, an appropriation, which is the only thing keeping it afloat today. In some people's views, appropriations is pork.

 

^Initially she wanted to rob federal transit funds to fill the gap in the highway trust fund...

I don't approve of siphoning money dedicated for one service to fund rail. The highway service signage fee is paid by restaurants, fueling stations, hotels and motels, and attractions for their logo to be installed on a blue service sign. They will be upset that it is being used to fund a rail project that will not serve their needs -- after all, you can't install rail to service every interstate interchange.

 

The fee is used to maintain highways, perform cleanups, brush control and so forth.

Can you find a citation for that? I would be VERY interested in reading that... because it would be prime to use against say, COAST.

I don't approve of siphoning money dedicated for one service to fund rail. The highway service signage fee is paid by restaurants, fueling stations, hotels and motels, and attractions for their logo to be installed on a blue service sign. They will be upset that it is being used to fund a rail project that will not serve their needs -- after all, you can't install rail to service every interstate interchange.

 

The fee is used to maintain highways, perform cleanups, brush control and so forth.

 

Then they don't have to pay it anymore. It's voluntary. Why would businesses care how the money is used as long as the signs send business their way? Besides, the fee is way too small to cover much more than 1/4th of just the state's lawnmowing budget just along interstates, to say nothing of other divided, limited-access highways. In fact, the state is considering eliminating its costly, dangerous and unnecessary interstate lawnmowing program and instead replacing the fescue grasses with perennials and other less-maintenance intensive highway landscaping. The $12 million annual savings from that can and should go to support transit.

 

Anyway, back to the Logo advertising program, the revenues from which have been a mere $3 million per year. ODOT has also been contracting out the Logo highway exit sign program. ODOT was proposing last year to split the profits from the sign program with contractor when the bid come up for renewal again (I don't remember when that is -- it may have already happened). The revenue to the state was projected to increase to $11 million per year. I don't know if all of the revenue was proposed to go to 3-C Corridor or just the additional revenue ($8 million). Even if it is just the $8 million, that will go a long way toward paying the cost of the 3-C trains. State employee travel cost savings should easily cover the remainder.

 

I don't see ODOT cutting any highway maintenance as a result of this -- except for that which results from reduced pavement and bridge damage by ODOT increasing the capacity of the 3-C line and allowing NS and CSX to divert freight from trucks to trains. That's 400,000 fewer truck-miles per year, by the way.

 

To oppose the state on this proposed change is a reach. You have to be looking for something to oppose.

Can you find a citation for that? I would be VERY interested in reading that... because it would be prime to use against say, COAST.

 

See the eighth paragraph in this USDOT press release:

 

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot12808.htm

 

She tried to do a lot worse than that. She completely removed most references to intercity and transit rail from the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission's final report to Congress. Fortunately, this was caught in time and the report's delivery stopped. The rail references were put back at the behest of a majority of commission members. So Mary Peters and two others issued a "minority report" without the rail references.

 

Anticipating that you will ask that I cite a source for that, see:

https://www.planetizen.com/node/29416

No, I just disapprove of using targeted, specific highway funds for rail. That's not opposing the 3C corridor, so I resent your statement that I am "looking for something to oppose." I'm a large advocate for high-speed rail, and passenger rail in general, but you can't go around and lob such unfounded accusations to your supporters.

 

That said, I'm still against the proposal. While you need increased rail transit and freight, you also need to maintain the current freeway network in the state -- and not neglect either. The rather small amount of money generated from the highway signage program is still money coming into the state from a dedicated highway fund that should be spent for its original intention and purpose. Not diverted to cover a projected shortfall.

 

To flip the other side of the coin, you would surely be opposed if we used 10% of passenger ticket revenues to cover highway bridge maintenance? Or if we used a percentage of the freight 'toll' to rebuild interstate highways in concrete?

Did you bother to read what I wrote? I just told you the amount of money from the Logo program will increase, and will not represent a diversion from highways when ODOT expands its "fescue-free highways" program. Furthermore, the Logo program isn't a highway user fee, therefore it isn't subject to the Ohio Constitution's restriction on spending such fees only for highway purposes. It's fair game for whatever needs ODOT deems necessary. With driving on a multi-year decline and the need for transportation choices growing, the need is clear.

 

And the up-and-coming mode of transportation is always financially supported, at least in part, by the established mode.

 

If you're looking for leak-proof firewalls between the modes -- they don't exist. Railroads still fund their competition with the property and income taxes they pay to state and local governments, some of which invariably finds their way into building and maintaining roads. Putting highway funding into railroads makes sense, too, especially when expanded 3-C Corridor freight rail capacity will take another 400,000 truck-miles off highways and onto privately owned rail corridors that gas taxes don't fund in perpetuity. If you were such a supporter, you wouldn't have glossed over this important piece of information either.

I've read that, but I'll hold off further comments until I refute this with a detailed column perhaps later today. It's an interesting topic.

 

You wrote, "Anticipating that you will ask that I cite a source for that..."

 

Don't be obtuse. I was requesting a citation so that I could read it further and prepare a column that would refute comments made by COAST, not that every statement must be cited just so I can keep others in check. Note that I have not provided citation after citation for my statements, much like I expect most on here not to do either. This isn't an encyclopedia.

By the way, it is the Ohio Department of Transportation, not the Ohio Department of Roads and Highways. I could see some objection if the revenues raised by ODOT went to fund programs unrelated to transportation, especially when there are so many pressing transportation needs. But as Ken says, it is neither a usage fee nor a tax and it is purely voluntary, like advertising.

 

By the way, the rationale for the creation of the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund was the notion that mass transit could benefit highways and roadways by relieving congestion and reducing wear and tear on the roads.

 

Sherman, again you are a voice of reason against the fanatics!  I appreciate your support of rail, and your ability to objectively look at both sides of the issue.

I'm not a fanatic, given that I support rails and highways equally, but I don't wear rose-colored sunglasses and claim to know every answer. That's why I am preparing for my latest column that will present my statements, backed by citations, in a detailed explanation on why I believe that this is a wrong measure to take to fund the 3C corridor's maintenance, and why -- to gain mainstream acceptance in a state that is weary on funding it in the first place given this state's horrid budget woes, that upfront solutions that can appeal to the taxpayers and the industry alike is needed.

^If you support rails and highways equally, what percentage of ODOT funding do you think is apporpriate for roads and highways, and for mass transit?

Sorry to interupt a good debate, but it seems that the concern over what pot of $$$ the funding comes from is not high on the radar of the general public... as this story from the Middletown newspaper suggests by the comments made by local officials and the public.  They just want to see trains rolling.

 

Would train stop put city back on track?

By Chelsey Levingston, Staff Writer

Updated 3:28 AM Sunday, July 19, 2009

 

MIDDLETOWN — State officials will be deciding whether Middletown will be designated as a passenger rail stop, which city and business leaders say has the potential to spur development and reinvigorate downtown.

 

The Ohio Rail Commission is working on the 3-C Corridor Project, a passenger train system along existing train tracks through Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland. A stop is slated for Butler County.

 

Find this article at:

http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-business-news/would-train-stop-put-city-back-on-track-211084.html

 

I don't think there is a cut-off percentage that can be applied in this sense. You cannot apply an arbitrary number for 2010, given that the two modes are entirely divergent from each other at this point.

 

Rail freight receives some government assistance to upgrade or maintain the rails to handle higher capacities, to complete major tasks (e.g. Heartland Corridor), or to maintain a level of service, but the corporations that control those lines charge fees (e.g. tolls) for those same users to travel over a certain distance. Highway freight on public roadways receives additional government assistance -- and much more than rail -- to upgrade or maintain higher capacities or a level of service. Highway freight on private roadways (e.g. tolled roads) receive very little to no government assistance, the rare example being the West Virginia Turnpike when it was upgraded from two- to four-lanes in the 1970s and 1980s -- but that's another story.

 

If we were to apply this arbitrary number and say that highways can receive 80% of ODOT's funding and attention, and that rail can receive the other 20%, then the railroad operators would be ecstatic -- they can upgrade their rails to handle higher capacities but they ultimately concede some of their control to the government, more specifically, ODOT and politicians. Some taxpayers, though, will begin to question the high fees/tolls that these corporations charge to shippers and users of the railroad when they are receiving government funding.

 

I'm all for ODOT funding freight transit, but some of the steep fees must be reduced in return to encourage increased freight usage.

 

For mass transit, ODOT and other funding sources is all but necessary -- mass transit has rarely been profitable and almost always requires some assistance -- not that it is a bad thing. Passenger rail has almost always lost money -- such as the CL&N, DT&I, C&O, B&O... even back in the late 1800s, but it was propped up for decades by freight revenues and government assistance because until the automobile became widespread, it was one of the few options people had for traveling long distances. Today, people have options, but all to an extent are subsidized so it stands to reason why not mass transit?

I'm not a fanatic, given that I support rails and highways equally,

 

And just what is meant by equally? I, for one, do not believe that such a thing is possible or desirable. What we need in this country (from the perspective of government funding), is a balanced transportation policy which weighs the needs of the individual against the needs of the nation as a whole. This system will, almost necessarily, need to offset years of neglect of alternate modes of transportation and I don't just mean rails. The St. Lawrence Seaway can handle only 10% of all ocean going vessels which means that either increasing the capacity of the Seaway, Canal and Locks, or beefing up the intermodal transportation system which would allow more efficient offloading of ocean cargo to Great Lakes ships.

 

The US system of navigable inland waterways which, by the way, moves more tonnage in a day than the railroads do in a month, has been underfunded for decades. Lock closures along the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers cost millions of dollars/day.  The taxpayers pay $100/ticket for each passenger who flies in and out of the John Murtha airport in Johnstown, PA. I support commercial passenger plane travel but this is nonsense.

 

Our current system of transportation is not simply unsustainable; it is a threat to our national and economic security as well as our environment. Providing stability to some of the world's largest oil producing states has cost us trillions of dollars,  thousands of American lives and forced us to support despotic regimes.

 

So I don't really get what it means to support rail and roads, equally.

 

... I am preparing for my latest column that will present my statements, backed by citations, in a detailed explanation on why I believe that this is a wrong measure to take to fund the 3C corridor's maintenance, and why -- to gain mainstream acceptance in a state that is weary on funding it in the first place given this state's horrid budget woes, that upfront solutions that can appeal to the taxpayers and the industry alike is needed.

 

I'm interested to read it. But, as I said, I no longer believe that dedicate funding sources for specific modes of transportation is the way to go as it subjects transportation planning to political whim. The USDOT, as it apparently intends to do, must begin to think about transportation as a single priority with multiple means of addressing needs, not as a battle between rail, road and river.

 

Lima part of state’s rail funding request

Heather Rutz

2009-07-17 13:39:25

 

LIMA — What a difference a few days make.

 

Lima is now part of the high speed rail equation for which Ohio is seeking federal funds. Lima’s inclusion came about because Indiana settled on a route from Ohio to Chicago.

 

Lima learned Friday the Ohio Rail Development Commission is including the Lima route in its submission to the federal government for a piece of the $8 billion in stimulus money earmarked for high speed rail development, Mayor David Berger said.

 

 

http://www.limaohio.com/news/lima-39401-funding-rail.html

However, Bill Billett, owner of the Whistle Stop Shop currently in the station, doesnt think a stop is good for downtown.

 

First of all, I think Hamilton is more apt to be a stop than Middletown. Secondly, anything the government has gotten involved in as far as development has been a failure, Billett said.

 

Oh, really? The Interestate Highway System has been a failure in terms of development? Major US airports have been failures in terms of development? The Washington DC Metro has been a failure in terms of development. Could have fooled me as I remember when Germantown was nothing but farmland.

 

Funny, but we criticize the Saudis and Pakistanis for supporting Madrasahs which teaching anti-Western and radical Islamic fundamentalism but somehow people get through our educational system believing that everything the goverment touches is evil.

 

It was the Federal government that funded the Internet which allows such mindless statements to be broadcast, instantly, around the world. Has the Internet been a failure?

With all due respect to Sherman and a few others: you are assuming that we have had a level playing field to begin with when it comes to transportation funding.  That is simply not the case, although that is beginning to change with the new administration at USDOT.

 

For all of the whining I have listened to for over 35 years from Congressional "budget hawks" over "subsidizing" Amtrak and passenger rail, it has historically amounted to less than 2% of the total transportation budget.  What about the other 98%? Where have these same "hawks" been when it comes to the huge federal subsidies for highways and aviation over that same time period?

 

Admittedly, we have a great highway and aviation system to show for it (for the most part), but subsidizing Essential Air Service (EAS) to cities that can't produce enough air travel traffic to justify it has been a waste of federal funding.  Unecessary or poorly built highway projects have certainly not been a good use of federal funds.

 

seanmcl makes an excellent point about the neglect of our waterways as a transportation resource.  The St. Lawrence Seaway is one major breakdown away from shutting down shipping on the Great Lakes for a long term. Same with the lock and dam systems on our rivers.

 

These turf battles over protecting one's funding source are getting old and are a waste of time and effort.  We need to be pushing for a better and balanced funding system at both the state and federal level.