Sherman, your comment about my being obtuse was unfortunate. I hunted for that link because you wanted the link for the other tidbit, and I was actually trying to be helpful to you in providing that information. Please don't assume the worse in me just because we disagree about the use of a piddly $3 million in a $3 billion ODOT budget.

 

Now, onto to that debate.... I reject the notion of mode-specific trust funds because it perpetuates a mode in a silo protected from societal checks and balances. I understand why it was done -- to ensure a higher bond rating for government funded road projects. But there were other consequences as well.

 

What if we funded the construction of bars, taverns and nightclubs only with sin taxes, and those taxes could be used for no other purpose? We as a society may decide we want that; maybe we don't. But considering the political power that private-sector beneficiaries enjoy as a result of the constitutional restriction, the difficulty in amending the constitution discourages society from altering those sin tax spending patterns.

 

The same goes for transportation. My preference is for what Congress is considering doing: taking a large portion of public funding for transportation and putting it in a pot called Metropolitan Mobility Grants. Then states and local governments could decide how best to use those funds, whether it is for roads, rails, transit, bike paths or even creating land use patterns that reduce Vehicle-Miles Traveled.

I never stated that there was a level playing field, only that you need to pitch this to the taxpayers who aren't going to buy the bit if the media runs articles stating that a program for highway transport is being diverted to rail transport. They will see that simply as a money-grab by rail enthusiasts and pushers, and judging by the supplements that have run after the issue was announced, I am dead-on in my assumptions.

 

This isn't about finding funding for rail -- it will happen in some shape or form. This is about convincing taxpayers that they need to support this. Many will agree that upgrading the 3C corridor to handle more freight is probably a good thing to reduce traffic off of the interstate, but it's a harder sell to say that upgrading the 3C corridor to handle non-high-speed rail (79 MPH) passenger traffic. There is much more support by the taxpayers for a true high-speed line than something that is more incremental and piecemeal.

 

In reply to Noozer, EAS has produced great benefits in terms of economic activity, but it is correct that it is heavily subsidized. The same can go for highway transport, and although there are roadways that have generated marginal economic benefit, others -- such as Interstate 75 between Cincinnati and Dayton, have paid itself off many times over.

 

The Lexington Herald-Leader wrote a scathing piece about the over one-hundred industrial parks that Kentucky funded through the 1990s and early 2000s under Democratic and Republican leadership. Many of these projects were built in disadvantaged, rural areas and most are served only by road access. The vast majority are far from population centers -- located mid-way between many to encourage populations from other locales to be closer to a place of employment.

 

But today, most are underused and some stand incomplete or at zero percent capacity. I recalled seeing a particular site being leveled off of US 119 near US 25 in southern Kentucky many years ago at great expense -- the access road is long and steep, a huge bridge was constructed over a deep valley and ten years later, not a single tenant has located at the site. The bridge is complete, but that's about it. The vast industrial park planned along KY 67 near Ashland hasn't produced many tenants either, although the roadway is a huge timesaver and an effective bypass of Ashland (coupled with Interstate 64). It also all but eliminated traffic on a narrow, winding KY 1 that was the site of many accidents and fatalities. And on, and on. I could probably do a great column on this, but many are located so far from each other that it is cost prohibitive for me.

I never stated that there was a level playing field, only that you need to pitch this to the taxpayers who aren't going to buy the bit if the media runs articles stating that a program for highway transport is being diverted to rail transport.

 

Agreed. But, as in the case of the recent AP postings, the media seems to have a hard time being objective. And when you consider that the Associated Press is a virtual monopoly in terms of syndicated news (sure, there are others, but none as huge), this is a significant problem. A journalist's job is not to persuade but to inform. Bob standing on the corner may have an opinion about this or that, but that opinion does not qualify as news.

 

As an example, the recent piece by Andrew Taylor included the phrase money-losing Amtrak. I cannot imagine a credible journalism program in the United States that would accept this type of disparaging remark especially in the context of the article which was clearly meant to suggest that Federal rail subsidies are hurting highway programs.

 

In reply to Noozer, EAS has produced great benefits in terms of economic activity, but it is correct that it is heavily subsidized. The same can go for highway transport, and although there are roadways that have generated marginal economic benefit, others -- such as Interstate 75 between Cincinnati and Dayton, have paid itself off many times over.

 

Except that one could argue that overall, the impact on economic activity may be a zero sum game, or worse. If building any mode of transportation, roads or otherwise, only results in the shifting of economic activity from one region to another, the overall economic benefit may be negative since now you have the loss of tax revenues to the municipality that loses the business without, necessarily, reducions in the cost of  support social programs.

 

Most domestic economic stimulus does little more than shift employment from one part of the country to another. Infrastructural improvements, on the other hand, can be of benefit if they result in increases in productivity, nationally.

 

One problem that we have is embodied in the famous statement that "all politics is local". That may be true, but thinking locally may be the biggest impediment to national economic recovery.

This isn't about finding funding for rail -- it will happen in some shape or form.

 

Yes it is. It's using funding which does not now exist. The increased funding will come through a contract negotiation. NO FUNDING IS BEING TAKEN FROM ROADS!!!!! I can't state it any clearer than that.

 

This is about convincing taxpayers that they need to support this. Many will agree that upgrading the 3C corridor to handle more freight is probably a good thing to reduce traffic off of the interstate, but it's a harder sell to say that upgrading the 3C corridor to handle non-high-speed rail (79 MPH) passenger traffic. There is much more support by the taxpayers for a true high-speed line than something that is more incremental and piecemeal.

 

Please cite a source. The public surveys that have been conducted in California (contact Capitol Corridor director Eugene Skoropkowski) show that the speed of the trip is way down the list of travelers needs (business travelers excepted). The top three are low fares, frequency of departures and on-time performance. Then comes speed.

 

The 3-C Corridor is not just a project. It's the start of a change in culture. You don't change culture, supportive land use, extensiveness of local transit connections in one fell swoop and to such an extent that it can support a high-speed line without massive operating subsidies. Instead, you evolve it.

 

Nowhere on this planet has any travel corridor gone from 0 mph train service to 200 mph in one step. For that matter, I'm not aware of any that has gone from 0 to 110 mph. This is an evolutionary process. We didn't go from one-lane dirt roads to interstate highways, or from landing plans on grassy fields with a windsock to a multiple concrete runways governed by GPS, doppler radars and other advanced landing and weather systems. Those were evolutionary steps too which took decades of gradual cultural shifts to support advances.

 

That's life. So will it be with rail.

[shooting for a post count of 2327.]

 

Sherman is right, and the source is everyone I've ever talked to.  People generally support hi-speed rail but could care less about rail at 79 mph.  We already drive that fast on I-71.  Ask someone in Japan and they probably see it the same way (79 mph = meh).  Concrete plans to get us past 79 mph ASAP would help sell the 3C project... we need some sort of admission that 79 mph trains aren't expected to excite anyone.

 

I think Sherman is also right about the political approach.  You change culture by convincing people that you understand and respect the culture they already have.  At least, that's how you do it if you want it done quickly and smoothly. 

Wrong. You change the culture by making incremental progress, allowing support to coalesce around the accomplishment, and moving on to the next.

It is unfortunate though that we started out as passenger rail being the dominate mode of transportation in the late 1800's to mid 1900's.  By the 1950's the Government was discourging train traffic by imposing large taxes on train tickets.

 

"Automobiles, buses, and planes, of course, made further in-roads in the intercity travel business. Government subsidization of highways and airports greatly aided those transportation developments and kept costs low. Railroads did not receive government assistance after the war. In fact, a war-time 15% excise tax on tickets meant to discourage wartime civilian train travel remained in effect, keeping fares higher than necessary. This tax, reduced slightly in 1954, was not completely removed until 1962. "

 

http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/adaccess/rails-history.html

 

It was noted above that the tax was removed in 1962 but by that time, automobile transportation had become so dominant that rail had an uphill battle to become the third option for travel.  So passenger rail has to sort of start over again to some extent.  The government was playing "king of the hill" and knocked rail traffic back down again.

 

I think Sherman is also right about the political approach.  You change culture by convincing people that you understand and respect the culture they already have.  At least, that's how you do it if you want it done quickly and smoothly. 

 

I'm not sure that you have to do that much. What you do have to do, however, is make sure that their beliefs are not based upon half-truths, un-truths and inaccuracies. All of us, I believe, want the same thing: economic opportunities. What differs is what we perceive that we need to achieve these.

 

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” – John F. Kennedy

 

 

And I beleive none fo those excise tax dollars went back into any kind of rail development.  KJP, can you confirm?

Again, 327, show me the data/citations. High-speed rail doesn't happen ANYWHERE on this planet without a conventional-speed precedent.

 

Similarly, high-speed rail was voted down in every instance in the U.S. where a conventional-speed rail system wasn't available first. California, which has invested $2 billion in conventional-speed rail over the past 20 years, has created a public constituency for rail by boosting ridership, helping people understand rail's benefits, eroding skepticism, nurturing local transit connections and encouraging station-area development. It's why they finally were able to get the public to support a high-speed rail funding issue last November. Similarly the lack of precedent is why no one else in this country has (except the Northeast Corridor which also had a precedent that was improved in the 1980s and 90s).

 

Sometimes I think Americans believe European and Asian rail travel is only on high-speed trains. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Not only is an extremely small portion of their entire rail system "high-speed" (ie: better than 110 mph) but less than half of their high-speed systems are newly built (ie: post 1950) high-speed routes. For example only 40 percent of the French TGV system is the newly built 170+ mph system. The rest is on rebuilt lines dating from the 1800s (see map below).

 

Can you imagine building the interstate highway system without the 50-year precedent of paving roads, expanding the car culture and ensuring there was a ready market for users (and gas tax payers) sufficient to afford constructing it? And I'm sure you remember the interstate highway system in this country when it was being built -- you would drive 20 miles or so on it, then exit onto a two-lane US route and maybe switch back later to another completed interstate portion. Since hundreds of billions of dollars weren't available to build the whole system at once it also had to be built piecemeal. Had we built the interstate system without a precedent, could you imagine exiting the interstate system onto muddy roads? In my book, that's Third World impatience.

 

OK, now for the graphics. Note the color lines are new TGV routes. The rest are 19th century routes used by the TGV...

 

And just in case maps don't convince you as to the importance of building a far-flung conventional network first, consider the many messages from this photo...

It can safely be said that California voters would never have passed a high-speed rail bond issue last November had they not previously passed two statewide bond issues to expand the number and frequencies of conventional speed trains. Though it passed by a relatively slim margin, the high-speed rail issue was successful for exactly the reasons stated by KJP.

 

People see the benefits and the value of having a viable transportation option and they voted for more and better trains.

 

It is not always about speed.

And I beleive none fo those excise tax dollars went back into any kind of rail development. KJP, can you confirm?

 

Correct. And prior to 1956, most federal highway funding came from the general treasury, not gas taxes. Furthermore, the highway trust fund was "kickstarted" with $100 million in general revenue funds. See:  http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/aap/PRIMER98.PDF

 

Thus railroad passenger ticket taxes which were deposited into the general revenue fund helped to build highways. Like I said earlier in this forum, the existing mode of transportation invariably helps to fund its successor. The problem is we tend to think of transportation sequentialism in this country -- one mode replaces another. In my humble opinion, that's flawed thinking. One mode needs to augment another mode and be designed so that each can compensate for the other's shortcomings.

...  People generally support hi-speed rail but could care less about rail at 79 mph.  We already drive that fast on I-71. 

That is reckless and socially unacceptable.

New website for 3-C Corridor "Quick Start" project....just went "live"

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/3CisME/Pages/default.aspx

 

or http://3cisme.ohio.gov/

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/3CisME/Pages/default.aspx

Beat ya KJP!

Yep, but your link didn't work for me!

 

EDIT: put the http in front of it, like so:  http://3cisme.ohio.gov/

...  People generally support hi-speed rail but could care less about rail at 79 mph.  We already drive that fast on I-71. 

That is reckless and socially unacceptable.

 

Driving the 85th percentile (which is 74 MPH for I-71, mainline between Mason and Grove City) is not "reckless" and "socially unacceptable."

 

That said,

This isn't about finding funding for rail -- it will happen in some shape or form.

 

Yes it is. It's using funding which does not now exist. The increased funding will come through a contract negotiation. NO FUNDING IS BEING TAKEN FROM ROADS!!!!! I can't state it any clearer than that.

 

I never said that, so please refrain from being overly excited every time you come across a post of mine you disagree with. I stated that this isn't about funding for rail -- it can exist given that the attitudes of the taxpayers is adjusted. That takes diligence and an acceptance by the media that the 79 MPH non-high-speed-rail deal is not only financially feasible, but self-sufficient to the maximum extent possible without having to rely on government subsidies. You can reiterate to the media that it is possible, but if you can't convince the taxpayers -- who vote in Strickland and other officials -- that this is a service they can get aboard of, and that they should be paying, then finding funding is going to be difficult, if not possible.

 

In relation to Europe, there are other factors that went into their historically high passenger rail usage. Their fuel prices are stubbornly high as a result of much higher petrol taxes, which funds not only highway infrastructure improvements, but for rail. That said, I believe it is a worthwhile idea to pursue, but it would be political suicide because the taxpayers would vote whoever voted for it right out of office. Therefore, while the funding can be had, it won't because the taxpayers won't support such a proposal.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/3CisME/Pages/default.aspx

 

8.6% of Ohioans don't have or are unable to operate an automobile. That is 987,788 people.  To put things in perspective that is about the population of Cleveland (433,748), Cincinnati (333,336), and Toledo (293,201) Combined (1,060,285 +6.8% over non drivers)

 

The increased funding will come through a contract negotiation. NO FUNDING IS BEING TAKEN FROM ROADS!!!!! I can't state it any clearer than that.

 

I never said that, so please refrain from being overly excited every time you come across a post of mine you disagree with.

 

Please correct me if the following is not what you said.

 

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?

And those numbers will grow both because of an aging population and a growing number oif young professionals who want more options to having to own and operate a car.

 

Note to Sherman, DanB, KJP et al.... the debate, as I said is a good one, but you are now getting more into the realm of state and national transportation policy.  We have threads for that.... can we please move this very good debate over to one of those threads?

No problem noozer, but I won't further reiterate my statements again and again if it is only to repeat what I've said. I'll leave that up to my forthcoming column -- which it doesn't look like will happen today due to an exaggerated lunch and an event that I have photograph this evening.

 

Concerning the 3C, my last bit on it is: current polls show a 64% margin that support the high-speed 3C corridor plan, with a very strong following for those under the age of 25. What do the polls show for the 79-MPH plan? Or has no distinction been made?

Driving 74mph is a huge waste of fuel.

I think Sherman's point was that a 79 mph train begets an average speed comparable to driving, not that we should be driving at 79 mph on I-71 (although I'm sure many of us have done it, however inadvisable due to reasons of unsafe practices and fuel inefficiency).

Concerning the 3C, my last bit on it is: current polls show a 64% margin that support the high-speed 3C corridor plan, with a very strong following for those under the age of 25. What do the polls show for the 79-MPH plan? Or has no distinction been made?

According to this site, 64% of Ohioans support re-establishing passenger train service between the 3C's, there was no mention of the train speed.

That's what I was referring to. I'd like to see a poll done on the 79-MPH versus high-speed rail, and I would wager a bet that more would support 120-MPH+ rail versus 79-MPH rail. Factoring in the cost differences, the margin could be much lower.

Ok, but in the post that I quoted, you said Ohioans support the high-speed 3C plan, when in reality they support passenger train service (in general) between the 3C's.

Sorry. I meant for the 3C proposal in general.

No problem, just a little misunderstanding (on both sides). Also, I think that most people who would support a faster train speed would also support a conventional train speed, so there wouldn't be a big difference.

 

Not that I think that it really matters because I agree with KJP; that you have to establish a conventional speed line before you develop a high speed line. Besides, most of the people I have talked to, prefer cheap fares and frequent service over high speed. I think that most people would rather take a comfortable ride between the 3C's at a fair price over driving down 71 (where one can't really travel at a constant speed because one will eventually hit traffic or construction and will be forced to slow down or stop completely). So, in sum, I think that speed is not as big of a deal as you and others are making it out to be and is a last priority (as others have stated and as history has shown).

 

I posted some pictures of the proposed site for Cleveland's North Coast Transportation Center here:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17673.msg411240.html#msg411240

 

This could be the northern terminus of 3-C trains, unless a couple of them are extended through Cleveland to the eastern suburbs or even toward Buffalo. But first things first!

What is the probability that the 79 mph speed limit for non-grade-separated rail will be raised?  I assume it would take an Act of Congress [chuckle]? 

Congress already acted.

 

There are already mandates in the Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act that call for Positive Train Control (PTC), which can help achieve both greater safety and speeds, as well as to increase capacity for both passenger and freight rail traffic.

 

As corridors are upgraded for 79 MPH service, so too will be signals and safety equipment (grade crossings) and that will set the stage for higher speeds as well.

BTW, I get that speed isn't in the top 3 things consumers want from train service, but I think having triple-digit speeds would be psychologically significant for a lot of people who are sitting on the fence regarding the issue. 

KJP, I like the Buffalo idea (I actually like PA and NY money :) )

 

BTW, I get that speed isn't in the top 3 things consumers want from train service, but I think having triple-digit speeds would be psychologically significant for a lot of people who are sitting on the fence regarding the issue.

 

The hitch is that freight railroads won't accept passenger trains traveling faster than 90 mph on their tracks, so new passenger-only tracks would have to be built to get that extra 10 mph. I think once PTC is implemented and grade crossing protection is enhanced, 90 mph is a real possibility on the 58-mile section from Galion to Columbus which is lightly used by freight, or 90 mph could be seen on a third main track that might be needed from Greenwich to Berea to deal with traffic congestion.

 

The real debate (IMHO) is whether we build passenger-only tracks to allow the increase from 79-90 to 110 mph, or since we have to build such tracks for a mere 20-31 mph increase, why not design those new passenger-only tracks for 220 mph?

^because 220 mph would require new rights of way and would be wildly expensive?  I'm just guessing...you're the expert, so please tell me if I'm wrong. 

Because the cost difference between building a 110 mph right of way and a 220 mph right of way isn't that much. To reach 220 mph would require electrically powered trains and thus erecting overhead electric wires, substations and electrical generation facilities, but we could always add the electrification later. Without the wires, I'd bet the cost difference between 110 and 220 would be minimal. We could run diesel-powered trains at 110 mph on a right of way designed for 220 mph until there was enough money to electrify the line.

It's a shame that we no longer have the old DT&I electrified line with its awesome concrete poles!

 

Oy, but look how out of alignment that track is. Nobody will be running high-speed trains on those rails anytime soon.

Amazingly it has brand-new signals on it. Anyway.....

I didn't realize that image was so large. IIRC, I think it was Henry Ford who began to electrify the line, as it was heavily used by Ford to transport ore and other raw materials from southern Ohio to his plants in Michigan. It was a project that was never completed.

 

The line is still used, but was neglected for decades. I think they are in the process of upgrading the rail, but I don't know who the current owner and operator is.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit,_Toledo_and_Ironton_Railroad

 

Back to 3-C Corridor, please.

EDIT:  I just realized this article has already been posted.  Oh well, enjoy it again anyways...

 

 

Obama says Ohio is perfect for high-speed rail

By MALIA RULON • Gannett Washington Bureau • July 21, 2009

 

WASHINGTON - Ohio would be among states that benefit the most from the administration’s plan to encourage high-speed rail networks across the country, President Barack Obama said Wednesday.

 

More info at http://www.chillicothegazette.com/article/20090721/UPDATES01/90721012

Because the cost difference between building a 110 mph right of way and a 220 mph right of way isn't that much. To reach 220 mph would require electrically powered trains and thus erecting overhead electric wires, substations and electrical generation facilities, but we could always add the electrification later. Without the wires, I'd bet the cost difference between 110 and 220 would be minimal. We could run diesel-powered trains at 110 mph on a right of way designed for 220 mph until there was enough money to electrify the line.

 

I'm guessing that the horizontal alignment elements (spirals, curves, transitions) are quite a bit different in 110 mph vs. 220 mph.  The 220 mph horizontal design should require longer spirals/curves to transition into tangent sections.  I have no idea what the horizontal alignments are like for the proposed passenger corridors, but that difference in sprials/curves alone could lead to higher right-of-way costs.  Secondly, I imagine the different base material depths (ballast, sub-ballast, base) would be significantly different at the higher speeds, which add to the cost.  The other significant cost item is grade separation.  I thought 110 mph did not necessarily have to be grade separated, but 220 mph does require grade separation.  This factor alone significantly increases the cost when comparing 110 mph service vs 220 mph service.  A related cost is the different bridge loading and design.  The 220 mph service should require a more robust design - again increasing costs.

 

I agree that it is an interesting question to pose - something that would need to be examined as part of a benefit-cost ratio.

I sat down to do the math to prove my point and ending up proving yours....

 

Start-up of a conventional-speed passenger rail service typically requires an expenditure of about $1 million per mile.

 

To start a 110 mph service typically requires an expenditure of about $5 million per mile.

 

And a rail line engineered for 220 mph can range from $35 million to $55 million per mile to build. Leaving out electrification would save only a few million per mile.

 

The cost increase from conventional speed to 110 mph is by a factor of five. The increase from 110 mph to 220 mph is anywhere from a factor of seven to 11.

 

Dammit!! Nice job, tt342998. I'm glad you weren't just paying attention to highways while at ODOT!

Thanks for the clarification tt342998. I don't think that there is an overwhelming need for a 220-MPH service versus 110-MPH, but it would be wise to leave the 110-MPH alignment expandable for a higher speed.

 

Is there a reason why the 3C is defined to be 110 MPH, and not say, 130 MPH?

The definition is the FRA's.  Generally speaking, anything over 125 MPH requires complete grade separation (no grade crossings) and...as has already been pointed out... the capital costs increase the faster you go.

BTW, I wrote this in response to since-laid off Cincinnati Enquirer columnist Peter Bronson a month ago. Since the Enquirer didn't publish it, I'll post it here....

 

Trains earning their big comeback

 

  If we were to search for the free market in America, the last place we would find it is in the transportation sector. Even communist China has more private-sector financial investment in the development of its highway system than capitalist America did when it built its Interstates.

 

  But if you read the fact-free wanderings of ultra-right wing “think tanks” which were parroted June 30 by columnist Peter Bronson, you’d mistakenly believe trains and transit were the hogs at the public trough.

 

  Rather, the privately owned, heavily taxed and regulated railroads were whacked by the government-funded construction and operation of roads, highways, airports and air traffic control systems. Those systems aren’t responsible for property taxes, policing costs, profit margins and interest on private-sector financing for capital construction. Railroads still must shoulder those weights.

 

  Highways, which account for a monopolistic 90 percent of all passenger travel in the U.S., aren’t even financed by banks like most railroad improvements are. Instead highways are dependent on government-controlled trust funds.

 

  Yet the “think tanks” rail against trains as the hogs at the public trough.

 

  I doubt we would need to subsidize passenger trains if highways and airports were sold to corporate interests, or if freight railroads sold their tracks and facilities to government. Either option might at least level the playing field. But railroads use their rights of way as collateral to finance locomotive, rail car and other capital purchases. So if we want passenger trains and their tremendous environmental and economic benefits for Ohio (acknowledged in 2007 by the Buckeye Institute’s Sam Staley), governments have to subsidize train operations.

 

  Right-wing, faux academic groups fail to grasp this. Perhaps they choose not to. The anti-rail “think tanks” get hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations enriched by oil, petrochemical, refinery and asphalt interests, according to Media Transparency.

 

  Lack of political will, not lack of market, has kept Ohio in a passenger rail void. Of America’s 16-most densely populated states, Ohio and Hawaii are the only ones without a state-supported passenger rail program. The Cleveland – Columbus – Dayton – Cincinnati route was shown in a 1990 Amtrak study to be the second-most promising passenger route in the nation that wasn’t served by Amtrak.

 

  Deniers ignore that Americans are riding trains and transit more now than at any time since the 1950s, says the American Public Transportation Association. Meanwhile driving in America has fallen faster in recent years than at any time since World War II fuel rationing, the Federal Highway Administration reports.

 

  Airlines were bailed out to the tune of $30 billion in the 2000s, plus $3 billion in annual federal subsidies for air traffic control and essential air services, the Federal Aviation Administration reports. General Motors and Chrysler are receiving federal bailouts totaling more than $50 billion.

 

  Also on bailout boulevard is the highway trust fund itself. Historically fueled by federal gas taxes (at a tax rate unchanged since 1993 despite spiking highway costs and plunging driving), the fund is now insolvent despite an $8 billion bailout last year. Next year, 88 percent of federal highway funding is budgeted to come from general taxes. Meanwhile, federal subsidies account for only 20 percent of Amtrak’s operating costs, the Congressional Budget Office reports. So who’s the real hog at the public trough?

 

  Everything is changing. By 2030, one out of three Ohioans may be either too old or too poor to drive, according to the U.S. Census. In cities like Cincinnati and Dayton, more than half the population will be in that category. Finally, our young adults flee Ohio to cities made dynamic in part by having vibrant train and transit systems, says urbanist Richard Florida.

 

  Yet the “think tanks” rail against trains because they don’t want change. Or, perhaps they have their heads buried so deeply in their own feeding troughs that they haven’t noticed they’re not even hogs anymore. They’re dinosaurs.

 

END

That's an eloquent, fact-based response, KJP. I think it's one of your best.

Thanks! That's probably why the Enquirer didn't run it. Oh well.