If the R's vote against this and fuel gets back to $4.00 or more late this summer, I wonder how they will explain their votes.

They are already predicting $3.00/gallon and higher for the beginning of this summer.  Yes...what will they say to their constituents standing at the pump that is taking a bigger bite from their wallets?

Can we make the 3 C's Cleveland, Canton, and Columbus and give Cincinnati to Kentucky?

 

(Joking of course...don't get too offended Bengals fans! :) )

Funny thing about jam40jeff's comment is that I knew loads of people in Kentucky south of the northern 3 counties who would love to give those 3 counties to Ohio, Indiana, whoever else. 

^

Not sure Kentucky would want us. They already have our river.

Clearly still a lot of education to do.... anyone interested in writing a rebuttal.... [email protected]

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/03/01/cars-highways-cost-derail-train-plan.html?sid=101

 

 

Cars, highways, cost derail train plan

Monday,  March 1, 2010 4:01 AM

 

Several letters in The Dispatch, including Harry Bartow's Thursday letter, "Senate GOP works against constitutents," crow about the virtues of the high-speed trains in China and Europe and somehow suggest that Ohio is backward for not having them.

 

China is a very large, mostly rural and comparatively poor nation as far as the average citizen goes. It lacks a massive highway system like ours and the people don't have automobiles. Likewise in Europe, the cities were built long before the advent of the automobile and are not car-friendly. Because of high taxes and other economic conditions, especially in eastern Europe, the average person cannot afford a car.

 

Full letter at link above:

 

 

"Education" will not help in this instance.  This writer's real reasoning is hidden in his penultimate paragraph, the part about people on a spectrum, while the rest of the letter is smokescreen.  He's racist and does not wish to spend time with different kinds of people.  Ever.  He assumes he will encounter such people on rail so he'll never use rail.  Ever.  He clearly doesn't understand the geography issues he's citing, but he's not really trying to either.  He just wanted to say that cars allow us to avoid each other and that's how he happens to like it. 

 

This sort of rail opponent is not likely to back down, any more than they will back down on "neighborhood schools" or anything else segregation-related.  And they will always use a perfunctory non-racial argument to sugarcoat their position, like saying China is rural and Europe is urban and Ohio is neither... which makes no sense at all, but he doesn't care, because that's really not his point. 

^

Not sure Kentucky would want us. They already have our river.

 

only on paper. think of them as park rangers, or stewards of our river. much like canadians watch over northern natural resources for the usa!  :wink:

It means they also own (and thus are responsible for maintenance of) all the bridges over the river.  Mwahahaha, suckers.  :-D

"Education" will not help in this instance. This writer's real reasoning is hidden in his penultimate paragraph, the part about people on a spectrum, while the rest of the letter is smokescreen. He's racist and does not wish to spend time with different kinds of people. Ever. He assumes he will encounter such people on rail so he'll never use rail. Ever. He clearly doesn't understand the geography issues he's citing, but he's not really trying to either. He just wanted to say that cars allow us to avoid each other and that's how he happens to like it.

 

This sort of rail opponent is not likely to back down, any more than they will back down on "neighborhood schools" or anything else segregation-related. And they will always use a perfunctory non-racial argument to sugarcoat their position, like saying China is rural and Europe is urban and Ohio is neither... which makes no sense at all, but he doesn't care, because that's really not his point.

 

Not trying to convert the guy...only to present an opposing point of view.

I totally agree that letter needs to be rebutted.  Absolutely.  I rebut those letters on Cleveland.com pretty regularly and that one needs it too, for the benefit of other readers. 

 

I'm just trying to articulate a subtle point here.  Some of the anti-3C letters I read are well thought out and make legitimate arguments, and I don't see yet where any of these stronger counter-arguments have been addressed in a positive way.  I believe that is a necessary part of making rail happen in Ohio.  So far we've heard that Amtrak basically lied about the unpopular speed and schedule numbers.  That's about the worst possible way for us to addresss those concerns, by telling people they can't trust Amtrak. 

 

We need to win over the borderline folks who say "I want this to happen, and I would love to use it myself, but I seriously can't make the numbers work."  In that context, they can easily be peeled off from the pro-rail side based on immediate fiscal concerns.  But they could be won back fairly easily, if their reasonable and specific concerns were addressed in some official way.  That may not be feasible at this early stage, but the project may be in political jeopardy at this early stage.  We need to start winning over people who are relatively neutral.  Their concerns are more nuanced than those of the hard-right opposition, and may not be susceptible to the more basic pro-rail mantras. 

 

I guess I'm saying that yes we need to rebut obvious fabrications and knee-jerk naysayers... but we also need to do more than that, and the other part isn't quite as simple. 

The Dayton Daily News editorializes on 3C:

 

Train Questions fare, but there are answers

 

The editorial closes with this:

 

The questions being raised by the skeptics are a legitimate part of the democratic process. The 3C project should not be shoved down anybody’s throat. And it need not be.

 

...followed by 45 comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

^

Mostly negative comments, I might add.

"Education" will not help in this instance. This writer's real reasoning is hidden in his penultimate paragraph, the part about people on a spectrum, while the rest of the letter is smokescreen. He's racist and does not wish to spend time with different kinds of people. Ever. He assumes he will encounter such people on rail so he'll never use rail. Ever. He clearly doesn't understand the geography issues he's citing, but he's not really trying to either. He just wanted to say that cars allow us to avoid each other and that's how he happens to like it.

 

Amen 327.

China is a very large, mostly rural and comparatively poor nation as far as the average citizen goes. It lacks a massive highway system like ours and the people don't have automobiles. Likewise in Europe, the cities were built long before the advent of the automobile and are not car-friendly. Because of high taxes and other economic conditions, especially in eastern Europe, the average person cannot afford a car.

 

 

Commenting on that posted editorial....

 

As though the Euro-model is bad and ours is 'right'. Sorry, but they didn't totally gut and level their urban historical fabric to suit the needs big fat automobiles like we did. Instead, they make the 'car fit the fabric', so to speak...and thus, this has helped to prevent a lot of sprawl and auto-dependent, non-pedestrian froendly designs of the landscape.

 

Did it ever occur to some that just maybe, there are many more people who do not wish to own a car? I say this because I sense tones that the author assumes everyone would want a car if they could afford it. "Massive highway system" Hmmm....again, where is my freedom of choice, in the wonderful 'land of choice' to not have to be a part of it and solely depend on it for getting around?

 

What interests really dictate and shape our urban planning to result in massive seas of concrete parking and endless roads?  Does everyone really have a say so in this...or will the auto interests and all associated have the final say....

 

Did it ever occur to some that just maybe, there are many more people who do not wish to own a car?

I think these people wholeheartedly believe that Americans, and/or (especially) Ohioans, nearly unanimously want/prefer cars.

 

It also seems that the suburbanites totally discount that there is a significant number of people of means (enough to to travel for personal reasons, or need to for a job) that live in the city centers. They seem to think the cities have too few inhabitants that have any money and/or desire to move about. "Those people" (urbanites) exist on the coasts, but not in Ohio.

 

Of course, there are also racial issues at play.

In a WCPN radio interview, Patton acknowledged that there are some people who "have to" take transit but people prefer cars. That morning, on my way to WCPN downtown, I was on the #55 bus from Lakewood. I was one of 12 standees. If clothing is an indication of someone's financial wherewithal, I'd say most of the people on that bus could afford a car.

 

Although I'd doubt he'd do it, I'd like to ride with Patton on RTA rush-hour buses and trains, then ask all the passengers with cars to raise their hands. I think he would be amazed at the response.

If he agrees, bring a camera.

If you would like to share your thoughts on the state's 3C rail project and increased funding for public transit in Ohio, please attend this year's lobby day hosted by the Ohio Environmental Council and partnered by All Aboard Ohio as well as other organizations. See more at...

 

http://www.theoec.org/LobbyDay2010.htm

 

If you cannot attend but would like to share your thoughts with state legislators on increased funding for trains and transit, go to:

 

http://www.linkingohio.com/

Riding the rails

March 1, 2010 12:36 am

Frederiskburg.com

 

FREDERICKSBURG TO D.C. in a half-hour. A drive along Interstate 81 that lets you see the Shenandoah Valley countryside, not the side of one semi after another. A quick trip to Boston or Orlando that doesn't involve hours of driving or dealing with airports and airport security.

 

If you like the idea of traveling by train, but are put off by the slow pace, consider traditional passenger rail on steroids, able to get you from Point A to Point B at a couple hundred miles per hour, without having to leave the ground.

 

If you think it makes sense to take hundreds of tractor-trailer loads off the highway and put them on a freight train, consider the possibilities of an expanded national freight-rail network.

 

Full op-ed at: http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/032010/03012010/530709

This graphic was produced for the next newsletter of the Ohio Passenger Rail News. But I liked it so much that I wanted to share it with you, and to let you know that anyone can use this without prior permission from All Aboard Ohio. Please, share this far and wide.

 

 

Some may look at this map and say -- what constitutes a passenger train? What constitutes state support?

 

Any railroad passenger service regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration qualifies: meaning regional or intercity passenger rail services. That includes the South Shore Railroad, which operates passenger and freight service between South Bend, Indiana and Chicago. Does the State of Indiana financially support this? Yes, they do. While the counties of Northwest Indiana collect taxes to support the passenger rail service, the State of Indiana receives those funds and pays them out to support the Northern Indiana Commuter District which runs the passenger trains.

 

In other words, Ohio is the void.

^Does West Virginia (or counties of WV) support the commuter rail service (MARC) in a similar way to the South Shore RR ?  I am assuming that that service is regulated by FRA.

^^Wow, we're the only state in the top 10 without this passenger rail (Florida is #8).

^Does West Virginia (or counties of WV) support the commuter rail service (MARC) in a similar way to the South Shore RR ?  I am assuming that that service is regulated by FRA.

 

Yes, Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC) is an FRA-regulated regional passenger rail service. And that's an excellent question of whether it gets funding through WV/counties. MARC serves Harpers Ferry, Duffields and Martinsburg in WV. I will investigate. Turns out the West Virginia State Rail Authority is responsible for the upkeep of the three MARC commuter train stations in the eastern panhandle of WV. But it does not have any responsibility for handling or otherwise redistributing operating funding from a WV taxbase to MARC. The station upkeep angle is interesting however....

 

 

^^Wow, we're the only state in the top 10 without this passenger rail (Florida is #8).

 

It's much worse than that. Ohio and Hawaii are the only states among the top 17 most densely populated lacking state-supported passenger rail programs. Why?

 

Because Hawaii is an island and Ohio pretends to be one.

"Because Hawaii is an island and Ohio pretends to be one."

 

Haw haw...that's good!!! :-D

 

Some state slogans:

 

Ohio-The Hole Of It All

 

On Highways & Interstates Only

 

 

FYI......

 

Two GOP'ers talk passenger rail on "All Sides with Ann Fisher" tomorrow (Wednesday) from 10 until noon (not sure which hour they are in).

 

It will be Former GOP State Chairman Terry Casey on the con side and Scott Pullins speaking for the pro.  Ann says he is very pro-3C.

 

She invites all to call in or e-mail questions:

[email protected]

or

614-292-8513

 

Link to the show:  http://www.wosu.org/allsides/

Associated Press

Ohio transportation official: Trains create jobs

By MATT LEINGANG , 03.03.10, 03:46 PM EST 

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Ohio's plan to restore passenger train service, a project facing criticism from some Republican lawmakers, is a historic opportunity to create jobs around an emerging industry, the state's top transportation official said Wednesday.

 

Jolene Molitoris, director of the state Transportation Department, made an economic case for the train project, which aims to use $400 million in federal stimulus money for a startup, 79-mph service connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati.

 

"It is a proven job-creation engine," Molitoris said in a speech to the Columbus Metropolitan Club.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/03/03/business-financial-impact-us-stimulus-rail-ohio_7404463.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews

I just think its funny how, when looking from the outside in,  the state finally rallies around casinos as some sort of cure...and yet promotion of this struggles. Priorities.  I agree where it says that much re-development has been sparked around train stations. I find it really amazing that where I am at the moment...one train station has more business of all sorts, totally functional to the daily needs of the neighborhood...and is a walkable scene---than all the the core of downtown Cleveland. And this is a typical satellite station I am talking about...not Grand Central. The senator wants to know how we can afford the 17 million to operate.. I hope it will be addressed. I also hope the question will be raised of HOW we are affording the sky rocket prices to accommodate all infrastructure that is auto.

Many of you might be surprised (I know I was!) at how many publicly funded projects were completed since 2005, are under construction right now, or are funded to begin within the next two years in the 3C Corridor. How many projects? How about $93 million worth? All of these improvements will be beneficial to passenger rail service. These don't include projects wholly funded by the freight railroads....

 

http://members.cox.net/ohiohsr/Ohio-Funded%20passenger%20rail%20projects.pdf

 

You will also notice I included in the above document a similar roster of projects in the Cleveland - Toledo - Chicago (CTC) Corridor which already has four Amtrak passenger trains per day traveling the length of this corridor. The total investment in these projects was $370 million!

 

So the next time someone tells you nothing is going in the CTC Corridor, tell them more is going on there right now than in the 3C Corridor!!

This graphic was produced for the next newsletter of the Ohio Passenger Rail News. But I liked it so much that I wanted to share it with you, and to let you know that anyone can use this without prior permission from All Aboard Ohio. Please, share this far and wide.

 

Please send this map to all the editorial boards and everybody on the Controlling Board and the Senate Transportation Committee, for starters.

Two new stories:

 

City: Put trains at Union Terminal

By Jane Prendergast • jprendergast@enquirer.

com • March 3, 2010

 

Union Terminal should be Cincinnati's stop on the proposed rail line between Cleveland and here, City Council agreed Wednesday, and the

state should start studying improvements necessary to make it work.

 

Other sites have been discussed, including at Lunken Airport and in Bond Hill. The terminal has been the preferred location of most local officials. But some are concerned the 77-year-old building needs work to accommodate more

trains and can't be ready by 2012, when operation of the Ohio 3-C Quick Start line is expected to begin.

 

Full story at: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100303/NEWS0108/3040328/City++Put+trains+at+Union+Terminal

 

------------------------------------

Official: Rail plan will make Ohio greener

Transportation chief eager to ease minds of government skeptics

Thursday,  March 4, 2010 2:54 AM

By James Nash

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Ohio's transportation chief pushed back yesterday against critics of the state's plan to link major cities by passenger trains, saying the service would prove useful to thousands of Ohioans and help attract young professionals to major cities.

 

Ohio Department of Transportation Director Jolene Molitoris said she and her staff are preparing answers to 22 questions raised by state Senate President Bill M. Harris about the proposed service connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati.

 

Full story at: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/04/copy/official-rail-plan-will-make-ohio-greener.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

The original stimulus funding request was actually worded as intended to benefit 3C passenger rail. This marks the first 3C rail improvements.....

 

Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 2:55pm EST

Ohio to fund railway crossing upgrades

Dayton Business Journal

 

Some Dayton-area railway crossings will get upgraded with the help of federal funding.

 

Norfolk Southern Railway will install flashing lights and roadway gates at crossings in Montgomery, Summit and Warren counties.

 

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Wednesday approved construction authorization from the Ohio Rail Development Commission for the project. Norfolk Southern will install new lights and gates at the following highway-rail grade crossings:

 

http://dayton.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2010/03/01/daily18.html?t=printable

Columbus Dispatch poll

 

Please vote YES at:

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/04/hotissue04.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101

Won't let me vote without registering. This automatically means its not very scientific.

(EDIT)

sigh...already posted

And again, to play my broken record, while I support 3C, I totally understand Ohioans' resistance to rail because the combination of proximity and density of destinations and absence of complementary infrastructure brings up too many doubts.

 

IE, we are simultaneously too close, too far, too dense, and not dense enough for this to make intuitive sense to the average person.

 

 

Won't let me vote without registering. This automatically means its not very scientific.

 

Would unregistered voting make it more scientific? :P

Won't let me vote without registering. This automatically means its not very scientific.

 

The fact that it is posted on this site means it's not scientific. The fact that it originated as a link to a newspaper story means it's not scientific at all. I voted -- early and often -- but it's a meaningless survey. Still, I wanted my "yes" vote counted in this self-selected popularity contest.

Any self-selective barrier to the actual clicking makes it less representative. But I'm really just bitching, because I'm lazy.

And again, to play my broken record, while I support 3C, I totally understand Ohioans' resistance to rail because the combination of proximity and density of destinations and absence of complementary infrastructure brings up too many doubts.

 

IE, we are simultaneously too close, too far, too dense, and not dense enough for this to make intuitive sense to the average person.

 

Civvik,

 

can you explain why northern neighbor Michigan $upports and is upgrading Amtrak lines through its State?  Is not Michigan more car oriented, spread out and less densely populated than Ohio? ... I think the answer is "yes" to all 3. 

On top of that, none of Michigan cities, most notably its largest metro area, Detroit, which is bigger by far than any Ohio metro area, lacks the "complentary infrastructure" you speak of.... You're really reaching, Dude (assuming you're a dude).

 

The mentality of people such as yourself totally befuddles me and supports the metaphor that Ohio is an "island" when it comes to passenger rail -- physically and mentally.

For many, this issue is new and strange. The sudden availability of federal funding has forced many to learn alot about a complicated issue in a very short period of time. When a state legislator is uncomfortable with something, the safest answer is "no"....

 

 

Thursday, February 25, 2010

The not-so-fast track for high-speed rail

By Daniel C. Vock, Stateline.org Staff Writer

 

The $8 billion in federal stimulus money billed as high-speed rail funding that will pay for the Wisconsin improvements is going to 31 states to improve service on trains of all speeds. But as even the straightforward case of Wisconsin shows, the path for states to actually build high-speed rail promises to be long, costly and, in some cases, politically contentious.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=463426

Why would Michgan be more supportive?  Their line goes to Chicago, which offers none of the issues presented by Ohio destinations.  A train ride to Chicago, whether from Detroit or Cleveland or Cincinnati, is practical.  I was so disappointed when we went with 3-C instead of a link to Chicago... doesn't matter what part of Ohio you're from, a train to Chicago is useful because you're not screwed when you get there.  But if Cleveland is the most rail-friendly stop on your line, and it's downhill from there... then rail trips will be practical on neither end... and that's a significant barrier.

The reason is that Michigan was willing to pay 100 percent of the cost of its state-supported trains (to Grand Rapids and to Flint/Port Huron). Indiana and Illinois pay nothing towards these trains -- fortunately for Michigan, the route mileage in those states is very small (about 20 miles in each state) and didn't require coordination with them. Multi-state coordination is a bitch. The Founding Fathers recognized this 200+ years ago when they gave the federal government responsbility over interstate commerce. That doesn't help passenger rail development today as nearly all of it is being initiated by states.

 

BTW, Michigan does not provide operating support to the Detroit-Chicago route. Thanks to the involvement of the Michigan Congressional delegation in 1970, Amtrak was required to operate Detroit-Chicago when the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 was passed, setting up the nationwide system of Amtrak routes. No Congresspersons from Ohio were so assertive -- that's why the only trains we got merely pass through Ohio from someplace to someplace else. We just happen to be in the path of rail lines between Chicago and the East Coast.

 

Anyway.... Given the distance to cover across Indiana, to get a new route from Ohio to Chicago will require operating funding from the state of Indiana (unless it passes through Indiana nonstop). Then Ohio would have to bear the entire expense of the train-miles through Indiana to get to Chicago. Not likely.

 

Also, ridership studies show 3C has the greatest ridership potential as there is a high amount of travel here but little bus or air competition. There are significant competitors between Ohio cities (especially Cincinnati and Cleveland) to Chicago.

 

Oh, and state law requires that 3C be Ohio's first state-supported intercity passenger rail route.

BTW, the poll is up to 54 percent in support of 3C. If you haven't voted yet, go to:

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/04/hotissue04.html

BTW, the poll is up to 54 percent in support of 3C. If you haven't voted yet, go to:

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/04/hotissue04.html

 

Sweet!

 

Re Indiana:  My understanding, from an article posted many pages ago, was that Indiana had asked for CLE-CHI as their primary ARRA HSR project... and they were denied because Ohio, a necessary part of this plan, specifically wanted 3-C instead.  I believe Indiana wanted to fund this and wanted it very much.  You're characterizing Indiana as an obstacle to CHI-CLE...?  Seems like we're the obstacle.

 

Re: state law, Ohio's statutes can be changed but... what?  What?  Somebody went to the effort to make 3-C legally mandatory, before Ohio can do anything else with rail?  Why?  In what context does it make sense to take away your own discretion?  Might circumstances not change at some point?  Good heavens.  We deserve what we get here. 

Ohio actually wrote a eltter of support for Indiana's "ask", so we were hardly an obstacle.

 

The enabling legislation that created the Ohio Rail Development Commission states that one of it's missions is passenger rail development and that the 3C must be the first such corridor developed.

 

The ORDC was created in 1994 under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4981.

 

And again, to play my broken record, while I support 3C, I totally understand Ohioans' resistance to rail because the combination of proximity and density of destinations and absence of complementary infrastructure brings up too many doubts.

 

IE, we are simultaneously too close, too far, too dense, and not dense enough for this to make intuitive sense to the average person.

 

Civvik,

 

can you explain why northern neighbor Michigan $upports and is upgrading Amtrak lines through its State? Is not Michigan more car oriented, spread out and less densely populated than Ohio? ... I think the answer is "yes" to all 3.

On top of that, none of Michigan cities, most notably its largest metro area, Detroit, which is bigger by far than any Ohio metro area, lacks the "complentary infrastructure" you speak of.... You're really reaching, Dude (assuming you're a dude).

 

The mentality of people such as yourself totally befuddles me and supports the metaphor that Ohio is an "island" when it comes to passenger rail -- physically and mentally.

 

Sorry, "dude."  I am reaching because I am attempting to get inside the heads of Ohioans who are obstinately against rail. If you knew me, you would know that I am far from a rail hater. I don't expect you to know me of course, although if you would read that post more thoroughly, you would notice the "while I support 3C" and the particular choice of "understand" the opposition as opposed to "agree with" them.

 

We cannot dismiss the opposition as entirely ignorant and irrational, however tempting it may be.

Re Indiana: My understanding, from an article posted many pages ago, was that Indiana had asked for CLE-CHI as their primary ARRA HSR project... and they were denied because Ohio, a necessary part of this plan, specifically wanted 3-C instead. I believe Indiana wanted to fund this and wanted it very much. You're characterizing Indiana as an obstacle to CHI-CLE...? Seems like we're the obstacle.

 

No, that's not the reason why Indiana's $2.8 billion application was denied. It was denied because Indiana had not completed any environmental studies for CLE-TOL-CHI and because Indiana had not identified how it would financially sustain the train service over the long term. Quite simply, it wasn't eligible to receive federal funding.

 

BTW, Fort Wayne officials wanted this plan funded. INDOT submitted the request to appease them, but wasn't too interested in it as evidenced by their lack of carrying out prerequisite activities.

We cannot dismiss the opposition as entirely ignorant and irrational, however tempting it may be.

 

Okay, but what if you've heard the opposition's arguments and you objectively judge the arguments to be ignorant and irrational?

 

There's a difference between understanding why someone would position themselves in such a way ("I can understand an average voter being opposed to this because it is a big number [$400 million] and they have no experience with it") and accepting an inaccurate statement or concern as having any legitimacy ("Don't these chucklefucks realize that Ohio gets less in federal expenditure than it pays in federal taxes, and that this money is allocated to rail no matter what?")

 

It is irrational or ignorant to object to 3C rail for the following supposed complaints: 1) we supposedly can't pay to operate the system, or 2) we should spend the money on something else, or 3) there's no supporting infrastructure after you get off the train [though just because someone might not want to ride the bus doesn't mean that the bus system doesn't exist or that the same problem isn't solved daily by people who fly into Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus, or that 3C might give ZipCar or any other such business a reason to set up shop in those cities].  These concerns are all either addressed as part of the program or have the capacity to be addressed through the ingenuity of the market.

 

Once you understand the nature of the opposition opposition, then you can choose the most appropriate steps to counter it.  But assuming that someone's opinion is inherently reasonable simply because it is an opinion is height of relativism.  I'm reminded of what Plato has Socrates say to Callicles at the end of the Gorgias dialogue:

 

"...Let us, then, take the argument as our guide, which has revealed to us that the best way of life is to practise justice and every virtue in life and death. This way let us go; and in this exhort all men to follow, not in the way to which you trust and in which you exhort me to follow you; for that way is worthless, Callicles."

BTW, Fort Wayne officials wanted this plan funded. INDOT submitted the request to appease them, but wasn't too interested in it as evidenced by their lack of carrying out prerequisite activities.

 

One state does gets its legwork done, the other has visions of a world outside its borders.  It's like a sitcom about two wacky brothers.  Or it's like peanut butter and chocolate.  Great taste, less filling.  Wonder Twin powers activate! 

 

I'm gonna make a 327 public service announcement and air it in Ohio and Indiana.  I'll say: 

 

Just think what we can do

 

[claps, points at camera]

 

TOGETHER!

 

Ohio actually wrote a eltter of support for Indiana's "ask", so we were hardly an obstacle.

 

The enabling legislation that created the Ohio Rail Development Commission states that one of it's missions is passenger rail development and that the 3C must be the first such corridor developed.

 

The ORDC was created in 1994 under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4981.

 

 

On Olympia beer cans, it says "It's the Water" and we always wondered... if they know what the problem is, why aren't they doing anything about it?  Short sighted statutes get written every day.  They're probably just finishing up on the west coast.  Rolling with a high tech plan from 1994?  For the reason that it was passed in 1994?  I'm reminded of Miss Havisham and her wedding feast. 

 

Times change.  We need to hook up with Chicago.  That's the thrust of the national plan.  Do we think people here are going to support a new line, before we spend millions more upgrading 3-C to competitiveness?  Not likely.  Do we not think we can sell Ohioans on a trip to Chicago?  I think we can.