^---- I agree with everything from the previous post.

 

   I think what would really happen is that existing firms that build railroad infrastructure would expand, while existing firms that build highway infrastructure would contract.

 

   Some of the highway workers will lose their jobs and find work in the railroad infrastructure industry. They are likely to start at a lower pay scale because they are starting all over in a new, although related, industry.

 

    Some of the construction equipment such as dump trucks will be able to make the switch into a new industry, but much of it including paving machines will simply have to be retired.

 

    When it's all said and done, it is NOT an easy switch. Contractors would definitely prefer to leave things the way they are.

 

    This is why business owners tend to be conservative. Conservative in this case means "resistant to change." Every long-term decision is made based on some assumption about the future. The most common assumption is that things will remain the same as they are now. If you owned a construction company that specializes in highway infrastructure, and your company owns $10 million in construction equipment, most of it specialized toward building highways, and someone proposes that we divert $400 million of federal funds from highways to railroads, would you be happy?

 

    "If you want to make enemies, try to change something." - Woodrow Wilson

 

     There is understandibly some bashing of Republicans on this board. Republicans tend to be conservative, and tend not to favor the proposed 3-C line. It's not because they don't favor rail. After all, most of them will take the train on a trip to Europe or Japan. It's simply that they don't like abrupt changes. Also, they tend to be fiscally conservative. If we didn't already have a highway system, then it would make sense to expand passenger rail. However, it doesn't really make sense to have a highway system AND expand passenger rail, especially in competing corridors.

 

I reject that last sentence. Every other advanced nation has both rail and highways. Why should we be any different? Or aren't we as good as everyone else?

Yeah, I was in agreement up until that last sentence too.  Our country is still growing, so we can stop nearly all new road building, because we have enough to support today's driving habits.  We can accommodate growth with other modes, rather than constantly expanding the already out of control highway system. 

^ Agreed. The overall out of control of it...in itself, is a "road to nowhere"

 

    Think of it this way. Highways and passenger railroads are part of the same transportation system. Ideally, the two parts should complement each other.

 

    In this country, we have too many highways. No one on this board should disagree with that.

 

    But do we have too many highways and not enough rail? Some would say we do.

 

    If only we could turn back the clock to 1955 and make smarter decisions, we might be able to remedy this. Of course, we can't change history. So, our choices are to:

 

  1) maintain what we have,

  2) maintain what we have and add more highways, or

  3) maintain what we have and add more passenger railroads.

 

    Most posters on this board will probably say maintain what we have and add more passenger railroads. However, this is simply unaffordable. Our only affordable choice is to 1) maintain what we have, and we might not even be able to afford that! This is why the 3-C is such a tough sell in this economy, not because people are opposed to trains, but because they are opposed to raising taxes.

 

    Saying that the money will come from the feds and not from Ohio is just skirting the question. Unless the political situation changes drastically, any federal funds for the 3-C will come at the expense of federal highway funds.

 

    "Every other advanced nation has both rail and highways."

 

    It doesn't matter. We are not talking about building railroads in other nations.

 

    "Our country is still growing."

 

    50% of the growth is in the three states of California, Texas, and Florida. Ohio is not growing, at least not by much if at all.

   

Anyone know if this is going to be diesel or electric? For the future is should definitely be electric.

For now, diesel. But that doesn't rule out electric in the future.

 

  50% of the growth is in the three states of California, Texas, and Florida. Ohio is not growing, at least not by much if at all.

 

 

Very true. What is interesting is that Ohio's demographics are chaning. Over the next 20 years, the population 65 years and older will grow from 13 percent of the total to 20 percent of the total. They need to stay mobile and involved in the economy. As you get older, your stamina for long drives diminishes, you can't see things as far away and your reaction times while driving at highway speeds get worse.

 

Public transportation, including rail for cross-state travel, will help this growing number of Ohioans stay mobile and involved in the economy.

^  Not only an aging population, but one that is in need of seeking jobs from a wider geographical area than just their home town.

 

Job scarcity puts more residents behind wheel for long commutesBy Cornelius Frolik, Staff Writer

Updated 10:39 AM Monday, August 16, 2010

 

Jaime Garrett is not quite a casualty of today’s economic downturn. He has a job he loves and a home.

 

But Garrett, 37, is part of a growing number of Miami Valley workers who travel more than 90 minutes daily to get to work. The commute has placed Garrett in a bit of a financial conundrum; the shaky housing market is making it tough for him to sell his Centerville home, so he’s unable to move closer to his job in Dublin.

 

Miami Valley residents on average spend about 22 minutes traveling to get to work, according to the most recent U.S. Census data. But about 24,000 residents travel an hour or more to their jobs, and of that group, there are about 8,000 extreme commuters, whose trips to work take 90 minutes or longer.

 

Full story at: http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/job-scarcity-puts-more-residents-behind-wheel-for-long-commutes-863153.html

A thought popped into my mind last night that I think makes the situation a lot more clear.  Think about an old poorly insulated house.  It works fine, it's relatively comfortable most of the time, but it's expensive to heat and cool, and it can get drafty in the winter and kind of hot in some rooms in the summer sun.  The furnace is getting old and starting to rust out, so it needs to be replaced soon lest we end up with carbon monoxide problems.  We can replace it with a new high-efficiency furnace and cut the bills a little, but it's still an old house with poor thermal characteristics, so it'll always be expensive to keep it comfortable.  Instead, we could add more insulation in the attic, install storm windows, seal drafty floors, and blow new insulation into the walls.  This will of course cost money, but we can then get a smaller high-efficiency furnace, and with the added insulation we'll be saving money year over year and be more comfortable as well. 

 

The current mindset for our transportation infrastructure is akin to just replacing that furnace without treating the problems of the building envelope too.  We keep expanding roads and incurring the high costs of that, rather than looking for more economical long-term solutions.  By investing in alternative transportation, like better insulation, we could ultimately reduce the scope of our road system.  While some urban freeways have been removed completely, like the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco, I could see lane reductions happening in some corridors too.  We're already seeing road diets being implemented in many places, and projects like 3-C can allow more of that to happen. 

 

Also, it's a bit of a misnomer that we can't afford to maintain the infrastructure we have.  We certainly CAN afford it, we just don't WANT to.  Look how much people bitch and moan about raising the gas tax by $0.10, which is nothing compared to regular swings in price, and since it's not indexed to inflation its effectively lower now than it has been in decades.  The amount of money spent on the bank bailouts was more than we spent on building the Interstate Highway system in the first place (adjusting for inflation of course).  Imagine if we'd spent that money, about $14 billion per state, on bringing our rail system into the 21st century. 

 

Maintaining stuff that exists doesn't make for good news stories, there's no ribbon cuttings, so politicians can't take credit since it's not a new project.  This is actually a place where 3-C has an advantage, since there's lots of ribbon cutting opportunities, and any improvements later on will result in reduced travel times, and will at least garner SOME attention. 

One other point about the 3C that has barely been made here is that the majority of travel on the 3C will not be end to end.  Most people are just needing to get to Columbus whether they are coming from Dayton, Cinci, or Cleveland.  Plus people in Columbus who have families in the other cities will have access to visiting those cities via rail.  I can definitely see a tie-in for people in Dayton or Columbus wanting to use the airport in Cleveland.

 

Other uses would be for large festivals that seem to be constantly going on in all of our cities.  For example,  I've thought about going to the music festival in Cinci but it just seems too far to drive just for that.  I would certainly consider it more seriously if a train were an option.

 

It seems typically the first use that pop's into people's heads are sports teams as a reason to take the train.  Certainly there will be some but I feel there will be many, many more that take it for jobs/school/events/functions/conventions/protests/meetings/adventures than simply seeing Browns/Indians/Reds/Bengals.

 

  In this country, we have too many highways. [. . . .] So, our choices are to:

 

1) maintain what we have,

2) maintain what we have and add more highways, or

3) maintain what we have and add more passenger railroads.

 

 

If we have too many highways, why should we maintain all of them?  Logically, if we have too many highways, then we should maintain fewer highways.  Fewer lanes should be our future.

 

How does one judge whether we have "too many highways," though?  If it's simply by widespread unwillingness to pay for the costs of construction and upkeep, then the same standard would lead to the conclusion that we have too much passenger rail, too: opposition to increased funding for Amtrak is just as present, if not moreso, as opposition to highway expenditures.  If not by democratic sentiment, then what is the standard?

 

I personally think we have a fairly good highways system that could use some expansions in a few areas and a great deal more maintenance on existing areas, especially at vulnerable points like bridges.  I also sincerely wish that we had a way to build roads that lasted longer in between necessary maintenance.  However, I don't think we suffer from an overabundance of lane-miles in most of the places most people actually want to drive.  We may be overspending for gleaming four-lane highways through the middle of nowhere, but this fact alone doesn't mean that in the aggregate we have "too many highways."

FRA 13-10

Monday, August 16, 2010

Contact:  Rob Kulat

Tel:  202-493-6024

 

Overwhelming Response of States Seeking High-Speed Rail Funding Underscores Public Support for New Transportation Options

FRA Receives 77 Applications for High-Speed Passenger Rail Funding Totaling $8.5 Billion

 

In an overwhelming show of support for the Administration’s high-speed rail initiative, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood today announced that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has received 77 applications from 25 states for the most recent round of High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) grant funding.  Application requests total more than $8.5 billion and will be considered for funding from more than $2.3 billion appropriated in FY 2010.

 

This is in addition to the $8 billion appropriated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) as a down payment for the HSIPR program.

 

“The response to our call to transform America’s transportation landscape has been tremendous and shows the country is ready for high-speed rail,” Secretary LaHood said.  “We have received strong bi-partisan support for President Obama’s bold initiative that will enhance regional mobility, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, ease highway and airport congestion and reduce our carbon footprint.”

 

FRA received 20 applications from 10 states totaling $7.8 billion for high-speed rail corridor development programs.  FRA also received 57 applications from 18 states totaling $700 million for smaller, individual projects within rail corridors that are ready to begin construction.  While not all proposed projects can be funded, the Department will evaluate the applications to identify the projects that will deliver the greatest public benefits and give American taxpayers the highest return on their investment.

 

“These historic investments will allow states to take the next step in making their high-speed intercity passenger rail development plans a reality,” said FRA Administrator Joseph C. Szabo.  “The states and FRA have been working hard to establish a solid foundation for a long-term program that will reshape our transportation system.”

 

Total funding to date for the HSIPR program comes from several sources:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:  $8 billion.

 

FY2009 appropriations and remaining funds from a related FY 2008 appropriations funded program:  $95 million.

 

FY2010 appropriations:  $2.125 billion (HSIPR service development projects), $245 million (HSIPR individual projects), and $50 million (HSIPR planning and multi-state proposal activities).

 

Grant selections for the $2.345 billion in FY2010 appropriations are intended to help states further develop their corridor plans.  From this amount, $245 million has been reserved for individual projects within a corridor that is ready to begin construction.  Recipients of this funding will be announced in the fall of 2010.

 

To date, FRA has awarded more than $583 million to states for HSIPR.

We're starting to veer off-topic a little bit here and getting into a discussion that belongs on the "Re-thinking Transport in the US" thread.  The comments above are good, but let's try and keep it tied to the topic of passenger rail in the 3C.

 

Thanks! :-D

So if states are requesting $8.5 billion from a $2.3 billion pot of money, why isn't the administration changing its stance on FY2011 HSR funding? Why are they content to seek only a $1 billion pot of money (that Congress has since enlarged to $1.4 billion) for 2011? They should be supporting more -- like $4 billion....

 

http://www.fourbillion.com

  There is understandibly some bashing of Republicans on this board. Republicans tend to be conservative, and tend not to favor the proposed 3-C line. It's not because they don't favor rail.

 

Except that a few round trips per day at 79 mph on the 3C (i.e. the 3C Quick Start) was always supposed to be the first step of the Ohio Hub plan-- which was created under a REPUBLICAN administration with the support of a REPUBLICAN legislature.  They were for it before they were against it.

 

 

 

However, this is simply unaffordable. Our only affordable choice is to 1) maintain what we have, and we might not even be able to afford that! This is why the 3-C is such a tough sell in this economy, not because people are opposed to trains, but because they are opposed to raising taxes.

 

    Saying that the money will come from the feds and not from Ohio is just skirting the question. Unless the political situation changes drastically, any federal funds for the 3-C will come at the expense of federal highway funds.

 

The feds are paying the capital and ODOT has a plan to pay the operating subsidy for the 3C with state funds that are not constitutionally limited to highways.  No federal funds are currently coming out of highway funds for rail.

 

Also, you have to remember one of the primary reasons the government makes infrastructure investments:  jobs and economic development.  So, you have to look at the economic return of the project relative to the costs.  If all we did was look at the costs and ignore the economic benefit, we would have never built highways and airports.  Other states are realizing positive economic returns for their intercity rail "investments" and they recognize them.  Don't forget, there is a not insignificant freight component to the 3C project too. It's not just about passengers and transportation options.  It's also about creating jobs and attracting companies through improved freight logistics. 

 

The 3C has become a tough sell because the Republicans decided to make it a wedge issue for the election and the Ohio Contractor's Association (OCA) has become paranoid about the state spending any transportation moneys on anything but roads.  The OCA is well funded.  They made rounds to newspaper editorial boards around the state earlier this year  (and, as I understand it, their efforts  were responsible for the slug of negative editorials that came out then) and they are lobbying intensely against it-- this despite the fact that the OCA was for it before they were against it too. 

 

And, we can't forget the role of the Ohio Trucking Association which  doesn't want the freight railroads to receive any benefit and the Ohio Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Owners Association which is paranoid about anything reducing driving, gas purchases, and traffic to their convenience stores.  These are also well funded organizations. 

 

    ^--- The assumption is that it is a zero-sum game. The contractors association, etc. fear that the 3-C will divert economic activity away from the status quo toward rail. Whether it really will or not, I don't know, but that is the fear.

 

    If we were living in a growing economy we wouldn't have this issue. There would be plenty of economic activity to go around. In the 1950's and 1960's, governments built all kinds of infrastructure with hardly any resistance; that's because the economy was growing rapidly at that time. It isn't 1955 anymore.

 

    As for the Republicans being for it, and then against it, I think that Obama's campaign to bring more high speed rail to this country has something to do with it. Unfortunately, that's the way the political game is played.

Even with a fast growing economy they'd still be against it because they want to handle ALL the growth, not leave some of it for competitors to tackle. 

 

If we were living in a growing economy we wouldn't have this issue. There would be plenty of economic activity to go around. In the 1950's and 1960's, governments built all kinds of infrastructure with hardly any resistance; that's because the economy was growing rapidly at that time. It isn't 1955 anymore.

 

And in the 50s and 60s people weren't so anti-government and tax averse.  They recognized that things of value cost money, and in that sense were more mature.  Also able to easily see the utility of highways and airports.  There were millions who grew up with nothing but trains and the robber baron image of railroads had not yet faded. 

 

^--- The assumption is that it is a zero-sum game. The contractors association, etc. fear that the 3-C will divert economic activity away from the status quo toward rail. Whether it really will or not, I don't know, but that is the fear.

 

If we were living in a growing economy we wouldn't have this issue. There would be plenty of economic activity to go around. In the 1950's and 1960's, governments built all kinds of infrastructure with hardly any resistance; that's because the economy was growing rapidly at that time. It isn't 1955 anymore.

 

As for the Republicans being for it, and then against it, I think that Obama's campaign to bring more high speed rail to this country has something to do with it. Unfortunately, that's the way the political game is played.

 

You forget that when President Eienhower proposed the Interstate, the United States was in a down economy.

ODOT: Kasich Has No Influence On 3C Rail Plans

Agency Will Not Wait Until Election To Continue Project Spending

 

The 3C rail project, connecting Ohio's largest cities by passenger train, has become a dividing line in the race for governor.

 

More than two months away from the election, Governor Ted Strickland and Republican challenger John Kasich are on opposite sides on the 3C rail debate, which proposes to provide passenger rail service between Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland.

 

Last week, in an interview for NBC 4's The Spectrum, Kasich told NBC 4's Colleen Marshall that he will stop the 3C rail project if he is elected in November. Kasich described the current 3C plan as "one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard."

 

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/aug/16/5/odot-kasich-has-no-influence-3c-rail-plans-ar-195118/

 

Even if Kasich is elected, can he stop this, or will there be too much pressure from Washington?

If elected, Kasich is going to have to do everything possible to stop it because if the trains run, he's going to be proven one of the dumbest people I've ever heard.

Except that a few round trips per day at 79 mph on the 3C (i.e. the 3C Quick Start) was always supposed to be the first step of the Ohio Hub plan-- which was created under a REPUBLICAN administration with the support of a REPUBLICAN legislature.  They were for it before they were against it.

Clever

 

The legislators will benefit because the train will take them to within blocks of the Ohio Capitol, Vern Riffe office building, and the offices of the Columbus lobbyists.  How could they not like that?

Again, this is just a stupid stance for the Republicans to take.  Even if all the parade of horribles comes true you are getting $400 million of federal $, and paying $19 million per year to get it.  That works out to about 4-5% per year.  Not a bad deal. 

You forget that when President Eienhower proposed the Interstate, the United States was in a down economy.

 

Some of us aren't that old, Noozer.  You'll have to cut a little slack  :wink:

 

Letter in last week's Dispatch:

 

Kasich's stance on 3C Troubling:

 

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/08/11/kasichs-stance-on-3c-proposal-is-troubling.html

Again, this is just a stupid stance for the Republicans to take. Even if all the parade of horribles comes true you are getting $400 million of federal $, and paying $19 million per year to get it. That works out to about 4-5% per year. Not a bad deal.

 

Really dumb if the IEA's latest projection for record oil demand in 2011 materializes:

 

http://omrpublic.iea.org/omrarchive/12aug08full.pdf

 

And supply doesn't keep pace:

 

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/53807

 

The US‘s EIA is now expecting that crude output from the Gulf of Mexico will fall by an average of 120,000 b/d next year due to the consequences from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, such as the six month drilling moratorium and delays resulting from tougher regulation. The IEA takes an even more pessimistic view, saying that the BP spill places the ability of the oil industry to access new reserves on a ―knife edge‖. The Agency estimates that nearly 50 percent of the new oil supplies needed by 2015 would have to come from offshore fields, much of it from deep water. With operating and regulatory standards likely to be tightened and sensitive areas such as the Arctic seeing permitting delays, the pace of offshore oilfield development could slacken.

 

 

Only time will tell...

 

You forget that when President Eienhower proposed the Interstate, the United States was in a down economy.

 

Some of us aren't that old, Noozer. You'll have to cut a little slack :wink:

 

Letter in last week's Dispatch:

 

Kasich's stance on 3C Troubling:

 

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/08/11/kasichs-stance-on-3c-proposal-is-troubling.html

 

I was just 5 back then..... just trying to be good at history.  :)

There are blatant lies on Jon Husted's website (how small would the state budget have to be for $17 million per year to bankrupt the state? And how are Ohio state taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars?) - Husted for Ohio - under Tea Party - he states:

 

Opposing the Train to Bankruptcy

 

When Jon Husted learned the proposed high-speed rail plan would run at an average speed of 39 miles per hour and require hundreds of millions of subsidies from Ohio taxpayers, he expressed alarm, and demanded answers about the construction and operation of rail service in Ohio.  Further, Husted was one of only two Senate Republicans to vote against the bill that authorized operation of the 3C rail.

Is the U.S. Turning the Corner on High Speed Rail

 

 

(CNN) -- For a while now, crazy situations, hunger pangs and frustrating hours behind the wheel have been making life slightly miserable for Florida commuter Joe Panyanouvong. The attorney who regularly makes the 84-mile journey between Orlando and Tampa on Interstate 4 is ready for a solution.

 

"I have made this trip many times during peak hours for work and leisure. It can feel like a parking lot at times," said Panyanouvong. "During heavy traffic it's taken me as long as 2.5 hours to get from Orlando to Tampa."

 

He recalls one day when -- despite departing Orlando early to get a head start on a business trip -- traffic and farm animals got the best of him near U.S. Route 27 and Interstate 4.

 

Full story at:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/08/18/us.high.speed.rail/index.html?hpt=C2

This is wierd.  Why is OCA so afraid of rail? Most contractors would be chomping at the bit to get a bite of $400 million in federal dolars.  This makes me suspicious that highway contracting is somehow vastly more profitable than rail contracting.  Of course, the market makes such profit disparities in mature markets impossible so what is left? Something illegal?

This is wierd. Why is OCA so afraid of rail? Most contractors would be chomping at the bit to get a bite of $400 million in federal dolars. This makes me suspicious that highway contracting is somehow vastly more profitable than rail contracting. Of course, the market makes such profit disparities in mature markets impossible so what is left? Something illegal?

 

Some contractors are chomping at the bit. But their association president does not understand anything other than highways (except maybe public utility work). Either way, it's the same way of feeding at the public trough. Rail is simply unfamiliar to them, and you always fear what you don't understand.

Cross-posted from the general transportation thread. Use this the next time you hear someone says public funding for rail is not a conservative value......

 

William F. Buckley Jr. on Railroads on National Review Online

June 14, 2002 2:15 p.m.

Yes to the Railroads

A national endowment of the railroads is defensible.

 

...Now, the argument against federal financing of rail travel begins with the axiomatic rule: Let the rail passengers pay for their own conveniences.

 

A pretty fair rule, but it's not a violation of it to remark the complexities.

 

The first of these is that the government is heavily involved in subsidizing traffic of every kind. The motorist can hardly drive around the block without driving over asphalt primarily financed by town and county, but also with contributions coming in tangentially from the federal government. When you debouch from I-95, you travel from road surface 100 percent paid for by the federal government, down the ramp to cutoffs toward the construction of which the feds made a lesser contribution, but a contribution nonetheless, onto roads paid for by the state, and by lower echelons of government, county and city. It takes hardy pioneering into highly exclusive warrens before the user runs into the driveway he actually paid for himself.

 

The same holds true, of course, for the airlines, an intimation of whose problems was given us by U.S. Airways last week, when management said that service could not continue until $1 billion was raised.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://old.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley061402.asp

 

  "The government is heavily involved in subsidizing traffic of every kind."

 

  KJP, you have said that maybe a hundred times on this forum. Well, I know that, and you know that, but the typical voter doesn't know that.

 

    Life isn't fair.     

Removed by Order of the Court!

Even if Kasich is elected, can he stop this, or will there be too much pressure from Washington?

 

Even if Kasich isn't elected 3C won't happen.  The reason is they need a supermajority on the controlling board to approve the capital expenditure, and they don't have that.

 

So 3-C is pretty much dead unless the Dems win more seats on the controlling board or a few more Republicans change their mindes on the issue.  It really boils down to politiics, and right now the politics don't favor 3-C.  But ya'll came pretty close this time around.

This is wierd. Why is OCA so afraid of rail? Most contractors would be chomping at the bit to get a bite of $400 million in federal dolars. This makes me suspicious that highway contracting is somehow vastly more profitable than rail contracting. Of course, the market makes such profit disparities in mature markets impossible so what is left? Something illegal?

 

Some contractors are chomping at the bit. But their association president does not understand anything other than highways (except maybe public utility work). Either way, it's the same way of feeding at the public trough. Rail is simply unfamiliar to them, and you always fear what you don't understand.

 

 

I am just not buying it. What I am buying is that ODOT is corrupt with bribes and kickbacks and whatever agency will be doling out the rail money either doesn't exist yet or has not been corrupted.

 

I think you better be careful of making accusations you can't back up with fact.  ODOT has been very supportive of the 3C Quick Start and for you to suggest that something illegal is going on is just plain wrong. You're crossing the line here tedolph and I will recommend that you be given some time off if you don't remove this post.

Even if Kasich is elected, can he stop this, or will there be too much pressure from Washington?

 

Even if Kasich isn't elected 3C won't happen. The reason is they need a supermajority on the controlling board to approve the capital expenditure, and they don't have that.

 

So 3-C is pretty much dead unless the Dems win more seats on the controlling board or a few more Republicans change their mindes on the issue. It really boils down to politiics, and right now the politics don't favor 3-C.   But ya'll came pretty close this time around.

 

You've defeated yourself before you even put up a fight.

 

The 3C isn't over by a long-shot.  Wait and see how the debate goes once all of the pre-election "hot air" has been expended.  The reality for many of these legislators along the corridor (and many of them are among the leadership) is that they will not want to be seen turning down $400-million in free federal $$$ that can and will benefit economic development in their districts.

This is wierd. Why is OCA so afraid of rail? Most contractors would be chomping at the bit to get a bite of $400 million in federal dolars. This makes me suspicious that highway contracting is somehow vastly more profitable than rail contracting. Of course, the market makes such profit disparities in mature markets impossible so what is left? Something illegal?

 

Some contractors are chomping at the bit. But their association president does not understand anything other than highways (except maybe public utility work). Either way, it's the same way of feeding at the public trough. Rail is simply unfamiliar to them, and you always fear what you don't understand.

 

 

I am just not buying it. What I am buying is that ODOT is corrupt with bribes and kickbacks and whatever agency will be doling out the rail money either doesn't exist yet or has not been corrupted.

 

I think you better be careful of making accusations you can't back up with fact. ODOT has been very supportive of the 3C Quick Start and for you to suggest that something illegal is going on is just plain wrong. You're crossing the line here tedolph and I will recommend that you be given some time off if you don't remove this post.

 

I'm teed off at Tedolph! If only he knew how hard people at ODOT and ORDC worked to take what normally is at least a year long process and get it done in about three months AND present such a compelling case that Ohio won out over other states (like Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania)!

 

ODOT works their butts off, gets Ohio $400 million and THIS is their reward?

Even if Kasich is elected, can he stop this, or will there be too much pressure from Washington?

 

Even if Kasich isn't elected 3C won't happen.  The reason is they need a supermajority on the controlling board to approve the capital expenditure, and they don't have that.

 

So 3-C is pretty much dead unless the Dems win more seats on the controlling board or a few more Republicans change their mindes on the issue.  It really boils down to politiics, and right now the politics don't favor 3-C.   But ya'll came pretty close this time around.

 

You've defeated yourself before you even put up a fight.

 

The 3C isn't over by a long-shot.  Wait and see how the debate goes once all of the pre-election "hot air" has been expended.  The reality for many of these legislators along the corridor (and many of them are among the leadership) is that they will not want to be seen turning down $400-million in free federal $$$ that can and will benefit economic development in their districts.

 

It's not over till it's over!  :box:

Even if Kasich is elected, can he stop this, or will there be too much pressure from Washington?

 

Even if Kasich isn't elected 3C won't happen. The reason is they need a supermajority on the controlling board to approve the capital expenditure, and they don't have that.

 

So 3-C is pretty much dead unless the Dems win more seats on the controlling board or a few more Republicans change their mindes on the issue. It really boils down to politiics, and right now the politics don't favor 3-C.   But ya'll came pretty close this time around.

 

Damn, remind me not to get into a life-threatening car wreck near you! If so, I'm fucked! :)

 

There are a million ways to get 3C up and running. The one with the most complications is if Kasich wins more than one term as governor or 3C opponents have a stranglehold on the legislature for an extended period of time.

 

If 3C was an isolated trend, I might agree with you, Jeffrey. But 3C is part of a much larger tide occurring worldwide. America is one of the last places where that tide has arrived, and Ohio is one of the states that's not the first nor will it be the last to embrace rail as part of a more balanced, inter-connected system. The opponents can keep sandbagging 3C, but they cannot stop it.

A very fair, interesting, research-driven article that also touches on misstatements about the Ohio 3C Corridor .....

 

Can Conservatives Ride "No Train" To Victory?

By Bill Scher

August 17, 2010 - 3:37pm ET

 

This week, Wisconsin Republican primary gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker caught the attention of Washington pundits with his latest ad, because it features the candidate attacking President Obama with smug condescension and sarcasm.

 

But I was struck because Walker his betting his campaign on stopping Wisconsin's planned high-speed rail link. Even though it would create jobs. Even though it has already received federal funds. Even though the project has already begun. In fact, as the Wisconsin State Journal reported, Walker believes "the state giving back millions of dollars, even money that's already been spent, would be better than finishing the rail project."

 

Walker has even created an separate online campaign called NoTrain.com, in keeping with the Republican "No We Can't" theme.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010083317/can-conservatives-ride-no-train-victory

Cross-posted from the rail supplier thread. Sorry about the delay in posting this.....

 

Please note this is a press-release, not a restricted use news article

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/prnewswire/index.ssf?/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=cleveland.story&STORY=/www/story/08-11-2010/0005290325&EDATE=Aug+11,+2010

 

EWI Launches Passenger Rail Manufacturing Center

Center Aims to Stimulate State and National Manufacturing

Competitiveness and Jobs

 

    COLUMBUS, Ohio, Aug. 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- EWI launched a

first-of-its-kind Passenger Rail Manufacturing Center from its headquarters

in Columbus, Ohio. The mission of the Center is to develop and strengthen

manufacturing supply chains for the rail and rolling stock industries,

improve railroad product affordability, and develop technical innovations

that will allow railroad manufacturers to collaborate effectively with OEMs

(original equipment manufacturers) and deliver a new wave of manufacturing

job opportunities at the state and national level.

 

    Establishing the Passenger Rail Manufacturing Center is a strategic

move by EWI based on data predicting that passenger rail service will

experience strong national and international growth in the coming decades,

driving the need for new and improved passenger rail equipment and

infrastructure.

 

    Launched by a start-up grant from the Ohio Department of Development

(ODOD), the Passenger Rail Manufacturing Center intends to assist Ohio

manufacturers in securing a leading share of the emerging passenger rail

market and in exploiting the capabilities of underutilized manufacturing

plants and workers.

 

    As the leading national authority on materials joining and allied

manufacturing technologies, and an innovator of repair technologies for

rail manufacturers, EWI is uniquely positioned to manage Passenger Rail

Manufacturing Center operations and realize its goals. Says Suhas Vaze,

Director of the new Center, "One of the fastest ways to achieve

introduction and adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies for a

U.S.-based passenger rail industry is to actively facilitate and manage

technology transfer from the U.S. Department of Defense, oil & gas,

aviation, and automotive supply chains to rail industry supply chains. EWI

has been a highly effective technology bridge for these supply chains for

more than two decades and we are well-positioned to serve as the technology

bridge for stronger rail car supply chains."

 

    The Passenger Rail Manufacturing Center is one of five centers and

consortia operated by EWI that establish public/private partnerships to

advance U.S. manufacturing competitiveness.

 

    About EWI

 

    EWI is a leading engineering and technology organization dedicated to

materials joining and allied technologies. We provide applied research,

manufacturing support, and strategic services to nearly 2,800 member

company locations of global leaders in the aerospace, automotive, defense,

energy and chemical, government, heavy manufacturing, and electronics

industries. Visit ewi.org for more information.

We've Got Big Problems. Here's A Solution. Grab It!

 

  — by Al Swift, Chairman of the Advisory Board, American High Speed Rail Alliance

 

You know the list: Unemployment, Declining Global Competitiveness, Increasing Green House Gas Emissions, Environmental Degradation, Deteriorating Infrastructure, Highway Congestion.

 

But, I’ll bet you don’t know that a solution has been staring us in the face for years, just waiting for us to recognize its value … and to grab it.

 

A major part of any solution to these problems must be higher speed, intercity passenger rail. Its construction and development will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, result in major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from short-haul air travel and long-distance passenger car trips, help us control the ballooning cost of maintaining the nation’s highway infrastructure and limit congestion on our already crowded roads. Higher speed, intercity passenger rail can contribute to all of those solutions and we must not let it slip through our fingers … again.

 

Full op-ed at: http://www.hsrupdates.com/commentary/details/--506

An opposing view, this time from Steve Forbes....

 

Railroading the Taxpayer

08.30.10, 12:00 AM ET

 

Washington likes to think that government-funded infrastructure projects boost economic activity. It was just such a belief that the President tapped into last year to justify part of his expensive grab bag of projects and programs that constituted his initial $787 billion stimulus package. But there is at least one form of Washington-generated infrastructure spending we could manifestly do without: high-speed rail projects.

 

If the White House has its way the federal government--as well as state and local ones--will spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next couple of decades on projects that will be mammoth moneylosers and serve but a tiny fraction of the U.S. traveling public. Despite the fact that almost all the world's bullet trains operate in the red, they have cast a spell over political elites. Environmentalists love them because they will allegedly get us out of our automobiles. Unions love them because government projects mean bloated payrolls, pay packages and pensions. And the poor taxpayer gets railroaded.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0830/opinions-steve-forbes-fact-comment-railroading-taxpayer_print.html

Note the last line posted. If true fiscal conservatives don't scream like hell that this will bankrupt the state like they have about the $17 million for 3C trains, then their motivations (and the names of their puppet masters) will become much clearer...

 

Ohio seeks heavier freight trucks to spur exports

By MATT LEINGANG, The Associated Press

Updated 2:48 PM Thursday, August 19, 2010

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland's administration wants certain freight trucks to carry heavier loads on highways so that Ohio farmers and manufacturers can increase exports, a policy change unpopular with critics who say the added weight would further damage roads.

 

The plan, pushed by agriculture lobbyists to help spur corn and soybean exports, puts state transportation officials in a delicate position of balancing economic interests with the struggle to maintain Ohio's highways.

 

Overweight trucks carrying items such as construction equipment or other freight cause about $144 million in pavement damage to Ohio highways each year, according to a 2009 study by the state Department of Transportation. The trucking industry only partly covers that cost, paying about $97 million in taxes and overweight fees, leaving taxpayers to cover a $45 million shortfall.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ohio-news/ohio-seeks-heavier-freight-trucks-to-spur-exports-869891.html?cxtype=rss_ohio-news

but everyone can use crumbling roads, right?  ;)

 

maybe the trucking lobby will quiet down now that they got something they wanted?

Note the last line posted. If true fiscal conservatives don't scream like hell that this will bankrupt the state like they have about the $17 million for 3C trains, then their motivations (and the names of their puppet masters) will become much clearer...

 

Ohio seeks heavier freight trucks to spur exports

By MATT LEINGANG, The Associated Press

Updated 2:48 PM Thursday, August 19, 2010

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland's administration wants certain freight trucks to carry heavier loads on highways so that Ohio farmers and manufacturers can increase exports, a policy change unpopular with critics who say the added weight would further damage roads.

 

The plan, pushed by agriculture lobbyists to help spur corn and soybean exports, puts state transportation officials in a delicate position of balancing economic interests with the struggle to maintain Ohio's highways.

 

Overweight trucks carrying items such as construction equipment or other freight cause about $144 million in pavement damage to Ohio highways each year, according to a 2009 study by the state Department of Transportation. The trucking industry only partly covers that cost, paying about $97 million in taxes and overweight fees, leaving taxpayers to cover a $45 million shortfall.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ohio-news/ohio-seeks-heavier-freight-trucks-to-spur-exports-869891.html?cxtype=rss_ohio-news

 

The hipocrsy of some of our state legislators knows no boundaries.  And nothing brings it more out into the open than their silence on the cost of heavier trucks.  They decry "subsidizing" passenger rail, but what about a $45-million dollars subsidy to the trucking industry?

 

Shame on all of them.

FRA rethinking guidance for HrSR corridors   

Friday, August 20, 2010 

 

 

In a press conference this morning to provide an update on the Federal Railroad Administration’s High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program, FRA Administrator Joe Szabo (pictured) said the agency has “pulled back” the stakeholder guidance it has issued for shared-use freight rail/HrSR (higherspeed rail) corridors for reconsideration.

 

Full story at: http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/fra-rethinking-guidance-for-higher-speed-rail-corridors.html

Note the last line posted. If true fiscal conservatives don't scream like hell that this will bankrupt the state like they have about the $17 million for 3C trains, then their motivations (and the names of their puppet masters) will become much clearer...

 

Ohio seeks heavier freight trucks to spur exports

By MATT LEINGANG, The Associated Press

Updated 2:48 PM Thursday, August 19, 2010

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Gov. Ted Strickland's administration wants certain freight trucks to carry heavier loads on highways so that Ohio farmers and manufacturers can increase exports, a policy change unpopular with critics who say the added weight would further damage roads.

 

The plan, pushed by agriculture lobbyists to help spur corn and soybean exports, puts state transportation officials in a delicate position of balancing economic interests with the struggle to maintain Ohio's highways.

 

Overweight trucks carrying items such as construction equipment or other freight cause about $144 million in pavement damage to Ohio highways each year, according to a 2009 study by the state Department of Transportation. The trucking industry only partly covers that cost, paying about $97 million in taxes and overweight fees, leaving taxpayers to cover a $45 million shortfall.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ohio-news/ohio-seeks-heavier-freight-trucks-to-spur-exports-869891.html?cxtype=rss_ohio-news

 

The hipocrsy of some of our state legislators knows no boundaries.  And nothing brings it more out into the open than their silence on the cost of heavier trucks.  They decry "subsidizing" passenger rail, but what about a $45-million dollars subsidy to the trucking industry?

 

Shame on all of them.

 

Hey that's OK. We "need" trucks. We don't "need" rail, right? That's the justification we'll get.  :-(

The hipocrsy of some of our state legislators knows no boundaries.  And nothing brings it more out into the open than their silence on the cost of heavier trucks.  They decry "subsidizing" passenger rail, but what about a $45-million dollars subsidy to the trucking industry?

 

Shame on all of them.

 

And for the improvements to freight rail infrastructure that will take trucks off the road and reduce that $45 million, that makes the $17 million look even smaller.