Since this is is a slowly evolving process with trains that are not "high speed"...can we at least drop the name "Quick Start"?

 

Not my call. Even if was, the name is appropriate. The goal is try to get passenger rail service started up quickly.

 

The point is that everyone can get why you'd want to take a train that goes 150 MPH, whereas if we know the train is going around 70 or 80 MPH, it's going to take a little more convincing or word of mouth.

 

How about trains that offer WiFi, at-seat electrical outlets, reclining seats with lots of leg room, plus business-class accommodations, and a cafe car serving Skyline Chili, Great Lakes Brewing Co. beer plus other Ohio-based good stuff? And all of this for one-fifth the cost of driving?

 

Here's some more talking points (spread them around) developed by All Aboard Ohio (ODOT has their own and will soon have more)....

__________________

 

All Aboard Ohio's

3C Talking Points

 

++ The $400 million in federal funds for Cleveland – Columbus – Dayton – Cincinnati trains will create 399 good-paying jobs plus thousands more spin-off jobs (Source: Dept. of Commerce).

 

++ Ohio won 71% of rail stimulus funds requested. Indiana, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania won less than 2.5% of their requests. Unused rail funds will be reassigned to other states’ rail projects. The rail funding can’t be used for any other purpose (Source: Federal Railroad Administration).

 

++ Stimulus funding for trains and transit creates twice as many jobs as the same funding for roads and bridges (Source: U.S. Public Interest Research Group).

 

++ Giving back $400 million out of concern for paying $17 million per year – 0.005 of ODOT’s budget – to operate trains over company-owned tracks is like Ohio returning federal highway funds because it wont pay for the Highway Patrol, bond financing and other road subsidies of $1.2 billion per year (Source: Federal Highway Administration).

 

++ 3C will be the 12th most popular intercity rail service in the nation. AECOM, the world’s largest transportation engineering firm, developed the 3C ridership estimates – not Amtrak. AECOM’s ridership estimates are accurate to within a margin of error of only 4% (Source: AECOM).

 

++ The $400 million is a 25 percent down-payment on a higher-speed rail system in Ohio’s most densely populated travel corridor. Ohio is the 9th-most most densely populated state in the nation, and the most populous without state-sponsored passenger trains (Source: Amtrak).

 

++ Average 3C train speeds will not be 39 mph. ODOT planners have estimated average speeds to be about 45 mph which would make 3C the fastest new-start train service in the nation in the past 20 years. Other states’ trains were since speeded up. So will 3C’s (Source: ORDC).

 

++ Speed is not the important factor for ridership as travelers can be productive on trains. Instead, cost is the most important. Average Midwest rail fares of 8½ to 14 cents per mile are one-fifth the cost of driving (AAA and IRS: driving is 54 cents per mile). Columbus is 135 miles from Cleveland and 125 miles from Cincinnati. Dayton is 200 miles from Cleveland.

 

++ Buses are not as fast, affordable nor comfortable as trains. Greyhound overbooks its 3C buses, then asks 3C passengers to pay more for priority boarding or leaves them on waiting lists.

 

++ 3C stations are planned next to key transit routes and more buses will be rerouted into stations.

 

++ Infrastructure improvements for 3C will enhance a Columbus link to CSX’s National Gateway Corridor and a Cincinnati link to Norfolk Southern’s Heartland Corridor, both of which will enhance container shipping traffic to/from Ohio and save businesses millions of dollars.

Ironically, true HSR makes much more sense for a true 3C project than the restoration of regular passenger service that is on board now. The 3C+D, in my mind, should be aiming for the mid-level speeds in Europe - 90-110. Any true HSR above 130 mph, to me, has to drop D and focus on blistering fast connections at the 3C's, with at most one stop between and it needs connections to the east and south (and I guess the west). Irrespective of other trends (migration patterns, global warming), getting service reestablished along the 75 corridor would probably connect more Ohioans to regular long-distance travel destinations (Atlanta, the Carolinas, Florida) than any other service. This is currently dominated by air travel obviously, but a four stop (Lexington, Nashville/Knoxville, Chattanooga, Atlanta) no change seat from Cincinnati to Atlanta would make investment in the Ohio stretch of HSR to Cleveland that much more worth it.

Yeah 150mph makes little sense between Cincinnati and Dayton, since the high speed section would only stretch 20 miles or so, affording just a 10 minute advantage over 75mph.  Detroit has been left out of the discussion, and I don't know if it makes sense for a Cincinnati > Detroit service to go through Dayton or Columbus. 

 

The numbers for Cincinnati > Indy > Chicago HSR are much better because of Chicago's huge population, but we are presently completely at the mercy of Indiana's whims, and my thought is that they're in no hurry to help any Ohio city compete with Indianapolis. 

"400 million in federal funds will create 399 good-paying jobs..."

 

  What would you say if someone pointed out that not one of the talking points gives an individual a reason to take the train versus driving?

 

  Suppose I don't care how many jobs it creates or what it costs. I just want to go to Cleveland. I can get in my car this minute and drive there in about 5 hours, or I can drive to Sharonville or CUT or wherever and wait for the next train.

 

    People drive cars to save time, period.

>The main thing we're fighting is the "Why the hell should I take the train when I already have a car?" (as well as "Why the hell would I want to go to Cleveland", but that's a different issue).

 

That's it exactly. Everyone is fixated on speed and limited departures because the average person can see no advantage over driving their car along our free interstate highways. If we were starting a service with 150mph+ trains leaving every hour on the hour, those issues would vanish and the central debate would be capital and operations costs. People could then clearly see the advantage of taking the train and the value in paying for a ticket to do so.

^I think we need to reiterate the fact that the 3C will connect every stop from Cincinnati to Cleveland into the larger train network of the country.  Right now, those places have zero connection (except the red eye connections from Cincinnati to Chicago/DC).

Question - sorry if it's been asked, I couldn't find it.

Is it feasible to tack a car car onto the back of these trains? People carry on about not having their car when they arrive at their destination by train. Could they just take their car with them?

Question - sorry if it's been asked, I couldn't find it.

Is it feasible to tack a car car onto the back of these trains? People carry on about not having their car when they arrive at their destination by train. Could they just take their car with them?

 

That's an interesting idea.  I want to say though that these end up being more trouble (and expense) than they're worth.  It also only works on long haul trips with one stop, or at least only the cars are allowed to get off at the end since it takes so long.  I don't think there's even that many of these left in Europe.

The numbers for Cincinnati > Indy > Chicago HSR are much better because of Chicago's huge population, but we are presently completely at the mercy of Indiana's whims, and my thought is that they're in no hurry to help any Ohio city compete with Indianapolis.

 

Despite giving lip service to passenger rail because he now sees political expediency in doing so, Governor Daniels still is committed to roads. He continues to promote the southwest extension of I-69 as a boon to job development in Southern Indiana, but I think he really sees it as a way to leverage federal dollars with state dollars to pander to voters who resent being stuck behind slower traffic on curvy, hilly two-lane roads en route to Wal-Mart in the next town 25 miles away.

 

I don't believe Daniels' personal goal is to promote the long-term best interests of Indiana's people; I believe his long-term strategy is to grow his political capital in order to get to Washington, D.C., possibly first as a politician and later as a lobbyist or consultant. I don't think the long-term implications of competition between Indianapolis and Ohio cities are even on his radar.

 

Question - sorry if it's been asked, I couldn't find it.

Is it feasible to tack a car car onto the back of these trains? People carry on about not having their car when they arrive at their destination by train. Could they just take their car with them?

 

Amtrak operates non-stop Auto Train service between Lorton VA (Washington, D.C.) and Sanford FL (Orlando). They've had that service for many years.

...and a cafe car serving Skyline Chili...

 

You think that'll be a GOOD thing?  :lol:  Now if they had Graeters in the dining car, THEN we're talking.

This car-car idea may be worth a closer look.  It could serve as a bridge between 3C riders and their destinations, until such time as we can get our local transit systems up to snuff.  That might increase 3C's utility to acceptable levels for a good chunk of the market.

The delays for switching and loading/unloading vehicles on a short-to-medium-distance train make the idea of car carriers unfeasible, and then there's the added cost of rolling stock and the staging facility and staffing.

 

Auto Train requires check-in not less than 1 hour before departure (no exceptions) for standard automobiles, and not less than 2 hours for motorcycles and other vehicles. They allow no exceptions.

 

So, add an hour each at departure and arrival waiting for your car to be loaded/unloaded, plus a minimum of 20-30 minutes switching time if the crew is really proficient and committed, considering actual origin-to-destination travel time? Won't happen. That's what local transit, taxis, and rental cars are for.

 

...and a cafe car serving Skyline Chili...

 

You think that'll be a GOOD thing?  :lol:  Now if they had Graeters in the dining car, THEN we're talking.

 

I've had Graeter's; it's among the nicest things I've ever done for my taste buds. I never tried Skyline, though. I was afraid I might experience an interaction between it and the Graeter's.

 

Edit: While we're talking about the cafe car, don't forget the goetta. And there should be a good selection of Ohio beers.

"400 million in federal funds will create 399 good-paying jobs..."

 

  What would you say if someone pointed out that not one of the talking points gives an individual a reason to take the train versus driving?

 

  Suppose I don't care how many jobs it creates or what it costs. I just want to go to Cleveland. I can get in my car this minute and drive there in about 5 hours, or I can drive to Sharonville or CUT or wherever and wait for the next train.

 

People drive cars to save time, period.

 

True. The talking points are for opinion leaders, legislators and others at the grasstops.

 

Those of us at the grassroots want to know what the service could be like. I will develop those talking points when I get back to work on Monday.

I know on the East Coast they also have serious problems with the engines for those trains since they are quite a bit heavier than a normal passenger train. Getting stuck behind one that keep breaking made a Phila to Richmond trip last 7 hours.

I know on the East Coast they also have serious problems with the engines for those trains since they are quite a bit heavier than a normal passenger train. Getting stuck behind one that keep breaking made a Phila to Richmond trip last 7 hours.

 

The horsepower requirements of Amtrak's long, heavy long-distance trains have been a logistical problem from the outset. The SDP40F, a six-axle EMD with a steam generator for train heat, was supposed to be an interim solution, but after a couple of derailments at speed and reported roadbed damage because of weight and bad tracking, the host railroads started banning them.

 

The P30CH, GE's counterpart with head-end power, was plagued with mechanical reliability problems. Crews despised them, and their last Amtrak bastion was the Auto Train. A bunch were leased to SP/CalTrain to pull bi-level commuter trains out of San Francisco. The last one I saw was years ago, sitting fire-gutted at Amtrak's Beech Grove shops.

 

The E60, 6,000 horsepower electric was intended to haul the long-distance trains over the electrified Northeast Corridor portion of their runs. Again, derailment problems including one at 104mph that tore up track and ripped down catenary, led to their being sold to Conrail and re-geared for use as freight haulers. The European-designed AEM-7s took over successfully, but now are nearing the end of their service lives.

Just wondering...I thought the GE Genesis (P42DC) was used for the Amtrak Auto Train. Do these have any major problems?

>Amtrak operates non-stop Auto Train service between Lorton VA (Washington, D.C.) and Sanford FL (Orlando). They've had that service for many years.

 

I've heard that they can't provide this service from New York City due to the tunnels there and the tunnel beneath the Capitol Mall in Washington. 

Getting a bit off topic here....this discussion ought to be on the Amtrak thread.

Getting a bit off topic here....this discussion ought to be on the Amtrak thread.

 

The point was to see if it is something that could be implemented on the 3-C corridor, and why.  I don't see it being off-topic at all, as long as it doesn't keep going. 

Getting a bit off topic here....this discussion ought to be on the Amtrak thread.

 

Sorry. I picked a switch and took us down a siding. One last wrap-up comment on Auto Train.

 

Just wondering...I thought the GE Genesis (P42DC) was used for the Amtrak Auto Train. Do these have any major problems?

 

You're right. I was talking about ancient history (I watched dirt being invented). The P30CH locomotives entered service around 1974, had already proved their unsuitability and mostly had been relegated to heavy trains that required a lot of horsepower by 1980, and the last ones were scrapped in 1992. Nobody even kept a gutted carbody for museum display.

 

I haven't read anything negative about the P42DC. GE got their act together finally, and it's a sophisticated design with substantial improvements in performance and efficiency over its predecessors. I love the rumble of the 4-stroke diesel.

"You neglect northern Kentucky residents."

 

  Neither the 3-C line nor the Cincinnati Streetcar are proposed to go to Kentucky.

 

 

http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/covington-passes-resolution-in-support-of-the-cincinnati-streetcar/

They show support, but there are no active plans, unfortunately.

^

Waiting for Cincinnati.

<b>All Aboard Ohio releases new 3C TALKING POINTS based on new information....</b>

 

<b>Talking Points for Travelers: http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Talking%20points-travelers-AllAboardOhio.pdf</b> (462K PDF)

 

<b>Talking Points for Policymakers: http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Talking%20points-policymakers-AllAboardOhio.pdf</b> (52K PDF)

 

NOTES: the next time you hear someone say how slow the train will be or that Ohioans will have to subsidize the trains, show them the above talking points. They will learn that low cost is more important than speed. The train will be much less expensive than any other way of getting around and will be as fast as driving (and get even faster with more train system improvements as driving will increasingly take longer and get more expensive with higher gas prices).

 

The trains will represent just 0.005 of ODOT's budget. Would ODOT have refused federal money to build the Interstate highway system because it would have to pay for the Ohio Highway Patrol?

neither link is working for me

Damn, you jumped right on that new post! Still debugging it.

 

  "They will learn that low cost is more important than speed."

 

    I disagree with this. People drive to save time, and they pay a premium for the abiity to drive.

 

 

 

  "They will learn that low cost is more important than speed."

 

I disagree with this. People drive to save time, and they pay a premium for the abiity to drive.

 

 

 

At the Cincinnnati neighbhorhood summit, they asked 3 groups of Cincinnatians (total respondants were probably around 200-300) about what matter most to them in terms of transportation: Travel Time, Safety, or Accessibility.

 

The results were:

 

Accessibility- 53%

Saftey- 33%

Travel Time- 14% 

 

  "They will learn that low cost is more important than speed."

 

I disagree with this. People drive to save time, and they pay a premium for the abiity to drive.

 

 

That is based on travel surveys and experience in changes to various rail services, therefore the results are averages. For example, business travelers put a higher priority on time than on cost. So clearly not every survey was meant to speak for everyone. But experience from other rail services shows that adding more trains/departures or reducing rail fares causes ridership to increase more quickly than travel time reductions.

 

  "Adding more trains/departures ... causes ridership to increase more quickly than travel time reductions."

 

    Umm, adding more trains / departures IS a travel time reduction.

 

    The passenger doesn't want to wait until the next bus. He wants to leave NOW. Travel time from the passenger's point of view is the amount of time expired between NOW and the time he gets to the destination, not the amount of time actually moving. This is why automobiles are hard to beat.

 

   

Yes, but it's not classified as such in surveys. These are the top four travel priorities listed in order:

 

1. Low fares

2. Frequency of departures

3. Reliability

4. Speed

"At the Cincinnnati neighbhorhood summit, they asked 3 groups of Cincinnatians (total respondants were probably around 200-300) about what matter most to them in terms of transportation: Travel Time, Safety, or Accessibility.

 

The results were:

 

Accessibility- 53%

Saftey- 33%

Travel Time- 14%"

 

Were they asked how they got to the neighborhood summit? I bet most of them drove automobiles, which probably minimized their travel time.

"These are the top four travel priorities listed in order:

 

1. Low fares

2. Frequency of departures

3. Reliability

4. Speed"

 

  Then why is automobile transportion, which often the highest cost option, so popular? The typical American pays 20% or more of his income on automobile transportation!

 

    This is a loaded question, anyway, because "Frequency of Departure" and "Speed" are two components of travel time.

Then why is automobile transportion, which often the highest cost option, so popular? The typical American pays 20% or more of his income on automobile transportation!

 

Because it is the only option available.

^---No, automobile travel is not the only option available.  People have choices where they can work, sleep, and shop, and had even more choices in the past.

 

  Folks who live in the suburbs where public transportation is not available chose to live there. They can move to the city if they want to.

 

  In Cincinnati, 30,000 people ride the bus every day. There are options.

 

  Then why is automobile transportion, which often the highest cost option, so popular? The typical American pays 20% or more of his income on automobile transportation!

 

This is a loaded question, anyway, because "Frequency of Departure" and "Speed" are two components of travel time.

 

If you don't have auto-competitive public transportation, you won't use it. This is from page 7 at...

 

http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/weyrich_does_transit_work.pdf

 

A Better Measurement: Transit Competitive Trips

 

A measurement that allows us to calculate better the importance of transit – present and potential – is transit competitive trips. We need to ask not what percentage of total trips transit carries, but what percentage it carries of trips for which it can compete. Measuring transit by counting trips it cannot compete for is like asking how much orange juice you can get from a bushel of apples. More precisely, counting total trips is measuring how much orange juice you can get from a bushel of mixed fruit, only a portion of which is oranges. The fraction will always be small, but the problem is the question, not the answer.

 

How can we determine which trips are transit competitive? For transit to be competitive, three criteria must be met. First, transit must be available. Second, the available transit must be high quality. And third, the trip purpose must be one for which transit can compete. Let’s take a closer look at each of these criteria and see what they tell us.

 

First, a trip can only be transit competitive if transit is available. This is common sense: if there is no train or bus, you can’t get there from here, at least not on public transit. But the point this criterion makes is less obvious: measuring total trips is irrelevant, because in much of America, no transit is available.

 

What are the numbers? The best official source is the American Housing Survey. The latest available figures are from the 1993 Supplement. According to that survey, 54.48% of American households had public transit available (the trend is down, from 58.9% in 1983.) The number tells us that, in terms of transit competitive trips, transit could not compete for any trips from almost half the households in America, because they had no transit available.16

 

Equally important is our second question: did they have quality transit available? As noted earlier, the vast majority of American households have at least one car. If the available transit is poor quality, they don’t have to use transit, and most won’t.

 

Here the American Housing Survey has even more interesting news. In 1993, only 28.8% of U.S. households reported that they had satisfactory public transportation available (down from 39.39% in 1983 and 54.52% in 1974, the first year surveyed).17 And here’s the kicker: while annual transit trips per household nationwide remained virtually steady from 1974 to 1993, annual trips per household where satisfactory transit service was available doubled over the same period, from a low of 150 in 1976 to 300 in 1993.18 What has held down transit ridership is not unwillingness to use satisfactory transit, but its declining availability. In fact, the 1993 AHS Supplement indicates a virtual one-for-one correlation between households having satisfactory transit and households using that transit at least weekly.19

Folks who live in the suburbs where public transportation is not available chose to live there. They can move to the city if they want to.

 

People move to the suburbs for many reasons not related to transportation.

Please also note that, of the three Amtrak routes serving Ohio:

 

+ Lake Shore Limited (CHI-TOL-CLE-NYC) averages just 50 mph westbound and 47 mph eastbound;

+ Capitol Limited (CHI-TOL-CLE-WDC) averages 45 mph in both directions;

+ Cardinal (CHI-CIN-WDC-NYC) averages only 40 mph westbound and 42 mph eastbound (and operates just three days per week).

 

Despite the low speed, these trains carried more than 658,000 riders last year, more than 128,000 of whom got on/off at Ohio stations. In spite of horrible arrival/departure times AND the slow speeds, Ohio ridership was UP 10 percent compared to 2008 when gas prices hit $4 per gallon. Driving in Ohio fell 1.5 percent over the same period.

  "In 1993, only 28.8% of U.S. households reported that they had satisfactory public transportation available.."

 

  The other 71.2% probably lives in suburbs. They don't have public transportation available because they choose not to.

 

    The issue here with the 3-C is not a competition to see which mode is better, no matter how you measure it. The issue is how to choose between alternatives.

 

    One alternative is to build the 3-C line. Another alternative is to build nothing and continue with everything the way it is. The default alternative is to build nothing.

 

    There are some that say, "Doing nothing is not an alternative." Well, yes it is.

 

    A third alternative is to initiate a motorcoach service with 33 departures per day. I presented a cost estimate to do just that. I didn't get much response, but the cost estimate at least at a very preliminary level was quite favorable compared to constucting the 3-C line.  In fact, I kind of surprised myself, and now I am leaning against the 3-C. 

 

    As I see it, the main benefit of the 3-C lies in future enhancements to high-speed service and improved future connections. There is almost no immediate benefit when compared to new motorcoach service.

 

    So far, I am not convinced by the talking points, and I follow railroading. What do you say to the typical Ohio taxpayer who knows hardly anything about it?

 

   

Folks who live in the suburbs where public transportation is not available chose to live there. They can move to the city if they want to.

 

People move to the suburbs for many reasons not related to transportation.

 

I would argue that people move to the suburbs only for reasons related to transportation.  If it wasn't for the current transportation regime, the suburbs as they are would not exist.

The suburbs exist as they are because of draconian zoning and transportation planning (or the lack thereof).  People move there because it's artificially cheap, at least at first, and to escape the problems, both real and imagined, of crime and poor schools in the cities.  Of course, we see that this is an unsustainable situation, as many suburbs are falling to the same fate as inner cities, so something has to change to keep this from continuing. 

 

A bit back on topic, I can't believe we're still complaining about the whole speed and frequency issue of 3-C trains.  We established long ago that the current 3-C quick start program is the ONLY WAY TO GET HIGH SPEED RAIL.  Other ways have been tried in the past and failed.  Other states have similar low-speed rail systems and they're working, with ridership increasing.  Why isn't this getting through? 

Some people also move to suburbs because they want to live in a small town, but don't actually want to live in a rural area with actual small towns. I'm not saying that the 'burbs are small towns, but they sell themselves as that in contrast to the city. Rail allows for small towns suburbs, cars force the development of sprawl 'burbs.

 

  In my humble opinion the 3-C quick start plan has not been sold as a step to high-speed rail in the future.

 

  "The 3-C quick start plan is the first step in the process to bring high speed rail to Ohio by 2030" or something like that is all that needs to be said. Instead, I am hearing "The quick start plan will bring 47 mph passenger rail to Sharonville and create hundreds of new jobs." Other than what I see on this board, I haven't come across any mention of future high speed rail.

 

 

 

In my humble opinion the 3-C quick start plan has not been sold as a step to high-speed rail in the future.

 

"The 3-C quick start plan is the first step in the process to bring high speed rail to Ohio by 2030" or something like that is all that needs to be said. Instead, I am hearing "The quick start plan will bring 47 mph passenger rail to Sharonville and create hundreds of new jobs." Other than what I see on this board, I haven't come across any mention of future high speed rail.

 

 

It's been said many times, many ways.

 

Why this focus on buses, especially from someone who is so interested in speed? How fast is a bus? Answer: no faster than the introductory rail service. How much faster will a bus get? Answer: no faster than the introductory rail service.

 

How fast could the rail service go on the existing rail corridor, with improvements? Probably an average of about 70-75 mph with an express train, or 3 hours, 30 minutes from downtown Cleveland to downtown Cincinnati, with hourly departures during peak travel periods of the day and every two hours off-peak. That's what the Ohio Hub plan envisioned.

 

We could even run these trains off electricity (be it batteries or overhead wires), charged/powered by wind turbines, hydro and even solar. The trains' brakes produce their own regenerative electrical power, and cruising requires little juice. Thus their greatest energy use is limited to acceleration. That's one of the amazing things about steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology -- the contact/friction point between wheel and right of way is so small -- a big factor in its energy efficiency. It's what has kept steel wheels and steel rails around for so long.

I am afraid that the 500 lb. gorilla in the room when speaking of "Why People Live in the 'Burbs" can be boiled down to two words: Schools and Racism.

 

Granted: There are several generations of folks who were born and raised in suburbs who know no other way and can't be blamed for where they live but I'm addressing the original, post-WWII Genesis of Suburban sprawl in America.  What's this have to do with passenger trains in 21st Century Ohio, you ask?  Plenty.

 

Suburban sprawl made people more dependant upon their autos and less apt to use other modes of transport for short to mid-range trips.  The government was building highways "out there" so why not take advantage of it?  The problem is that, as with most things in America, we went overboard with our love of our automobiles and before we knew it our trains were nearly gone.

 

Ohio is a great state but is woefully behind most every other state in the country of similar size when it comes to transportation options.  Ohio's citizens deserve a choice when it comes to travelling from one corner of the state to another.  Highways don't pay for themselves, Airports don't either.  Why do so many people hold Passenger Rail to a different standard?

 

I haven't flown in over 10 years.  This is due in large part to the fact that I have five children and to fly my whole family somewhere would be prohibitively expensive.  I don't spend my time griping about how much Airports cost me, the "Average Taxpayer."  I realize that they are a needed public asset even though there isn't one in my town.  Just because an individual might not envision HIMSELF riding a 79mph train on the 3-C Corridor doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered as a worthwhile public investment.

 

A comprehensive rail network across Ohio isn't an Urban or Suburban issue.  It is an issue that has the potential to benefit cities and towns of all sizes.  It is an issue for all of Ohio.

 

I shall now dismount my soapbox. 

Ugh. Let's not bring up this topic of why people choose to live in the suburbs. Racism? Please. There are other topics here for that; 3C isn't one of them.

^^ Agree on all points however to suggest that people move to suburbs is because of 'racism' is a rather prejudiced assumption. While it certainly may apply often, we cannot broad brush things like this without in a way, beoming too assumptive.

 

If I want to move out of the city and purchase 100 acres of forest surrounding me because I happen to love being nestled in the middle of nature---AND because of the fact that I might have had unruly neighbors who happened to be of a different ethnicity than myself---and I simply didn't want to deal with the behavior anymore after many attempts of peaceful rectification/abatement of the problem through the right channels.... Does my choice to leave suddenly make me a racist?

 

 

On the same coin, if I were to leave a given core city and flee to the 100 acre tract because I happen to be of Italian/Irish decent...and the neighborhood I left happened to be nearly 100% black, say..... and I was threatened with racial slures like "honky"... "cracker"... or "WOP" ...would the logic that people flee for the suburbs because they're racist and/or racism apply in that scenario? Or are we subtly suggesting that no one else is subject to being discriminated against except blacks?

 

It is so easy to deal a race cad these days and many times it is simply unfounded and unwaranted....and I for one won't buy it or give up the right to express a view or opinion that relates to the topic just because it does not fit into someone else's paramaters/ideas of what being a non-racist is. .

 

But as the moderator said... Maybe this is not the thread for such discusion as I am sure I will be labled something now.

 

jeffinmichigan, please don't get sassy, and let's stay on topic, folks. This thread is long enough that we don't need long distractions. We have many great threads about suburban development and et. al.:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7292.0.html

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,16127.0.html

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,16557.0.html

et. al.

I think a certain amount of bleed-over is inevitable, though I take the caution at its face value.  One of the strikes against the 3C project is America's current suburban land-use pattern, which makes driving still a necessity in order to get to the station from the residence of most potential riders.  In practice, at least until and unless the 3C is linked up with suburban light rail in the major urban centers along the way, it's going to be a glorified park-and-ride, though I'm sure some people closer in will be able to reach their local stations by bus.

 

The suburbanization debate is important for the 3C debate.  If, as the urbanist narrative goes, the government decided to build the superhighways and land use patterns followed suit, then the decision to focus on more intensive (rather than extensive) land development can likewise be presumed to have the ability to shape preferences over the medium and long terms as well.  If, however, as the suburban narrative goes, people really wanted to live in suburbs and the construction of the superhighways was simply the democratic process in action--the people exerting their will on their representatives to set spending priorities--then the argument for building the 3C system takes on a much more authoritarian air.  In other words, it becomes something that must be imposed on the people, not offered to them.

Transit is competitive if it can get you to your final destination at a comparable cost and speed.  In other words, if it is actually competitive.  But that's just one aspect.  If the train leaves Cleveland at 3am, that throws up an obvious barrier to competitiveness, because one's own car has no such requirement.  The same goes for needing a taxi or a rental upon arriving... if it's a route where you wouldn't normally fly, like 3C, needing to obtain more transportation on the destination end is an additional barrier.  You would not have this problem if you drove, which for most people is well worth the premium. 

 

Also consider that a taxi from downtown to the outerbelt is probably going to cost as much as the train ride itself, likewise for a rental car.  When these costs and hassles are added to the train option, it becomes a much less viable for a lot of people.  This is why I'd rather see better rail service from Ohio to destinations Ohioans are more likely to fly to, or to places in which Ohioans dread driving.  Ohioans are used to driving among the 3Cs, which confers advantages upon arrival, and I don't see this service offering anything competitive with that preference.

If, however, as the suburban narrative goes, people really wanted to live in suburbs and the construction of the superhighways was simply the democratic process in action--the people exerting their will on their representatives to set spending priorities--then the argument for building the 3C system takes on a much more authoritarian air. In other words, it becomes something that must be imposed on the people, not offered to them.

 

Or 3C rail can also be seen as the democratic process in action- the people exerting their will on their representatives to set spending priorities.  The only thing that is different is that the priorities have changed.