My latest press release (on the previous page) really has upset some of the opposition. I didn't realize the highway monopolists were so insecure!

Good work KJP!!

My latest press release (on the previous page) really has upset some of the opposition. I didn't realize the highway monopolists were so insecure!

 

How so?  Any specifics?

 

Great writing BTW.

Podcasts of today's All Sides with Ann Fisher on WOSU:

 

http://www.wosu.org/allsides/?archive=1&date=09/14/2010

 

How so?  Any specifics?

 

Great writing BTW.

 

Thanks. Their "political hitmen" are e-mailing me, calling me a liar and are still upset we canceled their accounts on our Facebook pages for trolling. For such allegedly powerful people, they're so sensitive.  :cry: Remember that.

 

FYI, back when passenger rail was still a bi-partisan economic development initiative being pursued by a GOP gubernatorial administration and by an Ohio Rail Development Commission director who was a former Republican mayor, rail was unanimously popular. So, this may be of interest to all of you....

 

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=126_SCR_30

 

In 2006 the 126th Ohio Senate voted 33-0 on SCR #30 to support acquiring federal funding to advance planning work for the Ohio Hub System -- including the 3C Corridor. And state law (ORDC's enabling legislation) requires 3C to be the state's first route. Just over half (17 of 33) of those Senators from 2005-06 are still in the Ohio General Assembly. They are:

 

Senators of the 126th Senate who are in the current (128th) Senate:

R David Goodman    3

R Gary Cates        4

D Eric Kearney      9

D Teresa Fedor    11

R Tom Niehaus      14

D Ray Miller      15

R John Carey      17

R Timothy Grendell 18

R Bill Harris      19

D Dale Miller      23

R Kevin Coughlin  27

R Kurt Schuring    29

 

Senators of the 126th Senate who are in the current (128th) Ohio House:

R Ron Amstutz      3

R Randy Gardner    6

D Bob Hagan        60

R Jay Hottinger    71

R Lynn Wachtmann  75

 

The list includes two key members of today's Senate: President Bill Harris and President pro tem Tom Niehaus. Also Controlling Board members: John Carey, David Goodman, and Jay Hottinger.

 

The resolution's chief sponsor, Kurt Schuring, is still in the Senate.

One more interesting data set:

 

USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2000 Person-trips between metros

 

# Metro Area #1 Metro Area #2 Person Trips Comments

 

1 Los Angeles San Diego 10,466,883

2 Las Vegas Los Angeles 9,120,296

3 New York Philadelphia 8, 476,339

4 New York Washington DC 7,773,377

5 Los Angeles San Francisco 7,049,954

6 Sacramento San Francisco 5,337,613

7 Philadelphia Washington DC 4,678,680

8 Cleveland Cincinnati 3,750,772 Rank if all 3C added together

8 Dallas Houston 3,097,228

9 Portland Seattle 2,605,223

10 Norfolk Washington DC 2,590,212

 

 

 

MIDWEST REGION 14 Corridors

 

8 Cleveland Cincinnati 3,750,772 Ohio Hub 3C 24/36/93

24 Cleveland Columbus 1,800,126 Ohio Hub 3C

30 Chicago Detroit 1,614,286

32 Detroit Grand Rapids 1,411,112

36 Cincinnati Columbus 1,310,511 Ohio Hub 3C

41 Chicago Indianapolis 1,176,242

45 Chicago Milwaukee 1,115,713

46 Chicago St. Louis 1,095,190

49 Cincinnati Indianapolis 1,029,824

51 Cleveland Detroit 987,179 Ohio Hub

57 Kansas City St. Louis 920,066

58 Chicago Minneapolis 892,108

68 Chicago Madison WI 819,542

80 Cleveland Pittsburgh 716,468 Ohio Hub

93 Cincinnati Cleveland 640,136 Ohio Hub 3C

 

For the full document, go to:

http://freepdfhosting.com/f23fb49f46.pdf

Although I hate the tactic, it sounds like its time to hit some people with the "wishy-washy" label.

Do we know if Dayton is in the Cincinnati/Columbus/Cleveland data? The Dayton to Cbus and Cincinnati would strike me as having among the higher ridership.

Dayton to anywhere was not in the top 100 trips between metro areas. This table does not count daily work trips. Only intercity trips. But I'm sure Dayton contributed to the total number of trips, and if you add those into the total 3C data, the figures are even higher.

You know, it just seems like opposition to rail has now become a core Republican issue like abortion, lower taxes, gays in the military, immigration, that sort of thing.

You know, it just seems like opposition to rail has now become a core Republican issue like abortion, lower taxes for the wealthy, gays in the military, immigration from Mexico, that sort of thing.

 

Right (no pun intended)

 

  "You know, it just seems like opposition to rail has now become a core Republican issue..."

 

  Well, when KJP calls Andy Griffith's Mayberry a backwater, he's going to make some folks angry. Andy Griffith is very popular - it has to be if it's been able to survive on television all these years.

 

  "We weren't rural. We were regional, but not rural."  - Andy Griffith

 

    Mayberry was very urban; not large, but definitely urban.

 

 

 

Strickland vs. Kasich: The Great Train Debate

Published: Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 9:08 PM   

Aaron Marshall, The Plain Dealer

 

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Gov. Ted Strickland and his Republican challenger John Kasich are offering a stark contrast as they discuss a proposed passenger rail line that would connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/09/strickland_v_kasich_the_great.html

I hope there's going to be a more detailed article in the morning!

This is so depressing.

From today's Columbus Dispatch coverage of the first debate...

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/09/15/copy/debate15-art-gss9tao6-1.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

 

The candidates differed wildly on the merits of the passenger-rail plan. Questioning whether Ohioans would use a train that averages only 39 miles per hour, Kasich pledged anew to kill it.

 

"We don't know what it's going to cost, we don't know who's going to operate it, and we don't know who's going to get on the train," Kasich said. "I'm going to tell you - I'm governor, the 39-mile-per-hour high-speed passenger train is dead."

 

But Strickland argued that the rail system will create more jobs: "If we do not proceed with this, 10 and 20 years from now Ohio will be an island. Ohio will be cut off from this program that is developing."

 

NPR story briefly mentions Ohio....but a very good story on the national (and very political debate) over high speed rail...

 

States Struggle To Share Cost Of High-Speed Rail

by Brian Naylor / NPR

 

September 14, 2010

 

President Obama is calling for more spending on the nation's infrastructure, including railroads. The original stimulus bill allocated $8 billion to develop high-speed passenger rail, and this year Congress added an additional $2.3 billion.

 

Still, high-speed-rail projects have not been on the fast track. New federal funding for high-speed rail requires states to share project costs with the federal government — a tall order for states already strapped for cash.

 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129853938

Is there some way that the feds could punish Kasich by taking away highway dollars or something if he tries to go along with his plan to kill the 3-C?  Maybe try to get back the initial $25 million we already took.  That might convince him to change his stance on the issue.  Also I thought I read somewhere last night that Kasich is still pushing for the money to be used for something else besides rail including roads and bridges.  How stupid is this guy?  If he still thinks that is a possibility he will be pretty depressed when the feds take it back and give it to another state. 

You know, it just seems like opposition to rail has now become a core Republican issue like abortion, lower taxes, gays in the military, immigration, that sort of thing.

 

Large amounts of government spending are the key issue, and a lot of people think that certain rail projects require a lot of spending, but may fail to ever be successful.

 

There are a lot of Republicans (actually, a lot of Ohioans in general) that are pro-rail, but anti-3-C, by the way.

 

Kasich does raise a good point, however - who will ride this train with avg speed being 39mph when a car trip will be cheaper and faster?

Kasich does raise a good point, however - who will ride this train with avg speed being 39mph when a car trip will be cheaper and faster?

 

The same people who do in every other state that has a similar system.  People who can't drive, and people who don't want to drive.  It doesn't take a large percent of the population to get very high ridership numbers.  And to the people who are "for rail but against 3-C", this is just how it's done, you can't go from zero to a 200 mph system in one swipe without huge amounts of money (and believe me the same naysayers would be screaming about that too).  We don't need a gold plated high speed rail system for travel within Ohio, not yet.  We need to get our already sorely underutilized regular rail system back in operation so we can improve upon it incrementally.

^^

 

well said - i agree with the crawl before run logic.

I support the 3-c project fully and I hope it becomes reality however I wish Strickland would have just asked for more money upfront with the "upgrades" already included.  I'm sure people on here know how much that would cost and if there was any chance of us actually receiving full funding, but if the train took 4 hours instead of 6 from the start I don't think there would be as much backlash.  Maybe we can ask for more money to finish the upgrades in the next round of Amtrak spending.  I am no expert on this subject so if anyone knows answers to these points I would love to hear them.

I would like to add that Wisconsin received twice as much money as us so the government was willing to give larger sums of money out.  I guess my main question is did we have any chance of receiving all of the money to finish the whole 3-c project including the upgrades?

Large amounts of government spending are the key issue, and a lot of people think that certain rail projects require a lot of spending, but may fail to ever be successful.

 

"Large amounts of spending" like less than the amount it costs to mow the grass along the interstates?  I don't see Republicans crying about that money.

The thing that irks me most about the opposition is how they talk in absolutes and hyperbole.  "NO ONE will ride it."  Really?  Zero people will ride the train?  "It will cost us BILLIONS of dollars to maintain."  Huh?  It will take 115 years to get to BILLIONS (plural :) )  at 17 million a year in costs.  Even if it costs 30 million a year it will take a lifetime to reach billions.

 

Even if we take the low end estimates of ridership and Ken's estimates for fiscal benefits and cut them in half, its still a solid idea.

Large amounts of government spending are the key issue, and a lot of people think that certain rail projects require a lot of spending, but may fail to ever be successful.

 

"Large amounts of spending" like less than the amount it costs to mow the grass along the interstates? I don't see Republicans crying about that money.

 

That's because Obama never proposed it.  Yes.... it's that simple.

I think 3C got off on the wrong foot right from the get-go by framing the service in terms of total end-to-end travel-time, Cincinnati to Cleveland, of what? 6 hours and 45 minutes or something like that. That's the 39 MPH average everyone talks about.

 

The truth is, relatively few people will ever travel the entire lenghth of the line. For example, I've lived in Cincinnati since 1966 and have never been to Cleveland. So you've got all the layover times of six or seven stops embedded in the calculation of the average speed, dragging the average way down, and it's never recovered from that.

 

Someone should have been smart enough to say: Here's the travel from Cincinnati to Dayton, and the train will average 55 MPH, say. Or that it will average 57 MPH from Cleveland to Columbus.

 

Instead we're stuck will this millstone of 39 MPH that the project can't seem to shake.

I think 3C got off on the wrong foot right from the get-go by framing the service in terms of total end-to-end travel-time, Cincinnati to Cleveland, of what? 6 hours and 45 minutes or something like that. That's the 39 MPH average everyone talks about.

 

The truth is, relatively few people will ever travel the entire lenghth of the line. For example, I've lived in Cincinnati since 1966 and have never been to Cleveland. So you've got all the layover times of six or seven stops embedded in the calculation of the average speed, dragging the average way down, and it's never recovered from that.

 

Someone should have been smart enough to say: Here's the travel from Cincinnati to Dayton, and the train will average 55 MPH, say. Or that it will average 57 MPH from Cleveland to Columbus.

 

Instead we're stuck will this millstone of 39 MPH that the project can't seem to shake.

 

Great point.

still the facts are that the train will be slower than interstate travel by car.  it seems people need to better understand that this is the first phase of creating a secondary travel option that could be faster than car travel in the future.

And people need to understand that speed is not the main advantage of using a train.  Let's say, for example, I have a meeting in Cincy at 2 pm.  I could prepare for the meeting the night before, wake up in the morning, eat breakfast and then get in my car and start driving.  OR.... I could wake up in the morning, get on a train, eat breakfast and prepare for my meeting during the ride down... perhaps even fit in a nap :)

 

Additionally, if I am going to, say, King's Island for a family vacation, I would much rather deal with my kid on a train than a car.

 

We need to get off this whole "which way is faster" theme.  It's merely one factor.

 

3C Rail - The Efficient Way to Travel Ohio

 

insert image of business man enjoying a muffin, coffee, and daily news while smiling in his passenger seat

You know, I bet if you figure-in fueling time, whether it occurs before, during or after the travel, plus restroom and maybe meal breaks, it's not that much slower than driving. And maybe you had to get the car washed before or after -- more time. And maybe there's a wreck that closes down I-71 for an hour.

 

Few people honestly account for the time and money involved in driving.

 

For example, I drove to a funeral in Indianapolis last week. Did some non-freeway driving there to get to the funeral and then drove through my old neighborhood after. On the way back to Cincinnati, I pulled off I-74 for a minute to see my old summer camp (kind of in a pensive mood that day). When I turned the rental car in back in Cincinnati, the speed calculator said I had averaged 31.5 MPH for the day.

3C Rail - The Efficient Way to Travel Ohio

 

insert image of business man enjoying a muffin, coffee, and daily news while smiling in his passenger seat

 

... or working on his laptop... or talking/texting on his cell phone.... or using the bathroom without stopping... or taking in the scenery without causing a road hazard... or... you get the point.  How about we just have a picture of a businessman taking a crap, while talking on his cell-phone with a co-worker about a business proposal he is reviewing on his laptop... all while en route!

You know, I bet if you figure-in fueling time, whether it occurs before, during or after the travel, plus restroom and maybe meal breaks, it's not that much slower than driving. And maybe you had to get the car washed before or after -- more time. And maybe there's a wreck that closes down I-71 for an hour.

 

Few people honestly account for the time and money involved in driving.

 

For example, I drove to a funeral in Indianapolis last week. Did some non-freeway driving there to get to the funeral and then drove through my old neighborhood after. On the way back to Cincinnati, I pulled off I-74 for a minute to see my old summer camp (kind of in a pensive mood that day). When I turned the rental car in back in Cincinnati, the speed calculator said I had averaged 31.5 MPH for the day.

 

Your point to point average speed comparison in this case is not valid, when compared to the average running speed of the 3C. To compare to a train, you will have to factor in your final destination, via another mode at the end point of the transit mode. So maybe the train trip/endpoint mode via taxi you would average say 29 MPH. You certainly couldn't have made the side trip to the summer camp (Fort Scott by chance?).

[but you knew that]

 

I think we all know that speed is not the only determining factor here; but it is certainly good soundbite material for the uninformed (hey I can drive 70 mph on I-71, but only 39 MPH on the train --- not factoring in stops etc that would bring the average driving speed down).

The thing is that those opposed to rail are not opposed to it because of speed.  This is a factor to press on people, especially the unimformed who are only taking a passing glance at the issue, because they know it is something that will stick with the uneducated.  It is quite canny and of course something that is done in politics on other issues on a regular basis. 

Kasich does raise a good point, however - who will ride this train with avg speed being 39mph when a car trip will be cheaper and faster?

 

First, it's not a 39 MPH train.  It will travel up to 79 MPH when track and signal improvements are made and the avergage speed will likely be in the low to mid-50 MPH range.

 

Second, the average speed for similar corridors around the U.S. is in the mid-50 MPH range and every single one of those corridors have seen significant and steady growth in ridership since they began.

 

 

still the facts are that the train will be slower than interstate travel by car.

 

Why does anybody drive when driving is slower than flying?  Maybe we shouldn't invest in roads anymore until driving is as fast as flying.

Large amounts of government spending are the key issue, and a lot of people think that certain rail projects require a lot of spending, but may fail to ever be successful.

 

"Large amounts of spending" like less than the amount it costs to mow the grass along the interstates? I don't see Republicans crying about that money.

 

That's because Obama never proposed it. Yes.... it's that simple.

 

Obama didn’t propose cutting grass on the interstates, but he proposed 3-C? Did I miss something?  That comment is completely off base. Cutting grass has obvious returns, even if they are minimal (prevents wildfires, enhances safety, etc.), and it’s something that has to be done at least once a year (we could debate how often, exactly, but that’s for another thread). The debate about 3-C isn’t just pro-rail vs. anti-rail, even though some would lead you to believe that’s what it is. The issue has to do with spending a large amount of money (and yes, $400 million is a LARGE amount no matter what you are going to randomly compare it to) on a project that some don’t feel confident about.  I am very pro-rail, (I helped campaign against the anti-rail amendment to Cincinnati’s charter door to door, passed out stickers, sported a yard sign, spread it on my blog, etc.) but am hesitant to support 3-C.  My primary concern is that there’s not enough money from the feds and the plan to start slowly and let it grow isn’t the best strategy, and that has nothing to do with the president. Lumping opponents into some narrow minded stereotype like that isn’t the way to go about a debate.

Lumping opponents into some narrow minded stereotype like that isn’t the way to go about a debate.

 

Is there anyway I can convince you to give this pep talk to the Kasich campaign?

has to do with spending a large amount of money (and yes, $400 million is a LARGE amount no matter what you are going to randomly compare it to) on a project that some don’t feel confident about

 

So what happens to that $400 million if we kill off 3-C?  IT GOES TO ANOTHER STATE.  So by killing off the 3-C project, you're not saving the country ANY of the $400 million.  So stop throwing that figure out as a cost.  It's a sunk cost (and one covered by the federal government, not Ohio).

 

It all comes down to $17 million per year.  Do you think we get $3 million more benefit from cutting the grass next to the highways (which costs $20 million per year) than we would get from an alternative mode of transportation connecting our major cities?  How about from the suburban sound barriers which only protect the idiots that built cardboard boxes on cheap land right next to a noisy interstate, then whined about the noise?

 

Stop scaring people with your erroneous $400 million argument.  Talk about the facts and let's see if you still have an argument.

...My primary concern is that there’s not enough money from the feds...

 

In my mind, this is the biggest issue. If ridership or tax benefits end up being a little less than estimates its not terrible.  I still believe the net gain will be positive. If it ends up costing a lot more than $400 million its a harder sell.  Hopefully the engineering study will give us a good estimate of the total cost.

"High speed 39mph train" - that's the big problem.  Station locations/ridership is secondary.

has to do with spending a large amount of money (and yes, $400 million is a LARGE amount no matter what you are going to randomly compare it to) on a project that some don’t feel confident about

 

So what happens to that $400 million if we kill off 3-C?  IT GOES TO ANOTHER STATE.  So by killing off the 3-C project, you're not saving the country ANY of the $400 million.  So stop throwing that figure out as a cost.  It's a sunk cost (and one covered by the federal government, not Ohio).

 

It all comes down to $17 million per year.  Do you think we get $3 million more benefit from cutting the grass next to the highways (which costs $20 million per year) than we would get from an alternative mode of transportation connecting our major cities?  How about from the suburban sound barriers which only protect the idiots that built cardboard boxes on cheap land right next to a noisy interstate, then whined about the noise?

 

Stop scaring people with your erroneous $400 million argument.  Talk about the facts and let's see if you still have an argument.

 

You’re misconstruing my point.  My concern is that money isn’t enough, in other words we will end up with a sub-par product (or as Niko pointed out, go way over budget), and that will kill any hope we have of ever getting true high speed rail. It has nothing to do with whether the $400 million for rail is a waste (it isn’t, in my opinion).  If we build a half-hearted attempt, it may turn off even more people in the end.  If people pay to take the train across the state once or even a few times, have a bad experience or two, what are the chances they will support more rail in the future?

"39 MPH" is one of the more manipulative talking points I have heard in awhile.  I think the voters of Ohio are smarter than that.

^unfortunately I don't.

^Neither do I...I wish they were smarter, but I've seen little evidence to support that they are. 

You’re misconstruing my point. My concern is that money isn’t enough, in other words we will end up with a sub-par product (or as Niko pointed out, go way over budget), and that will kill any hope we have of ever getting true high speed rail. It has nothing to do with whether the $400 million for rail is a waste (it isn’t, in my opinion).

 

You said the "issue has to do with spending a large amount of money (and yes, $400 million is a LARGE amount no matter what you are going to randomly compare it to)" so I think your argument was that $400 million is too much to spend.  My point is that we are not spending $400 million.

 

If we build a half-hearted attempt, it may turn off even more people in the end.

 

It has been shown about 5 million times how we are starting off similar to how other states with less population density than Ohio started off, and it worked in pretty much every one of those states, so I don't know what can possibly be said at this point other than you have no basis for this argument.  You are purely speculating with nothing to back it up, even in the face of the opposition having significant data to refute your point.

You said the "issue has to do with spending a large amount of money (and yes, $400 million is a LARGE amount no matter what you are going to randomly compare it to)" so I think your argument was that $400 million is too much to spend. My point is that we are not spending $400 million.

 

Did you read the rest of the post? I explained that as I finished the post.

 

It has been shown about 5 million times how we are starting off similar to how other states with less population density than Ohio started off, and it worked in pretty much every one of those states, so I don't know what can possibly be said at this point other than you have no basis for this argument. You are purely speculating with nothing to back it up, even in the face of the opposition having significant data to refute your point.

 

I’m fairly concerned that the current 3-C plans are a half-hearted attempt at passenger rail. That’s an opinion, not speculation, and it’s based upon the plans (which I’ve been following closely).  I pay less attention to studies by groups with a vested interest in having 3-C either built or not built.

Did you read the rest of the post?

 

Yes.  That was where you backpedaled.

 

I’m fairly concerned that the current 3-C plans are a half-hearted attempt at passenger rail. That’s an opinion, not speculation, and it’s based upon the plans (which I’ve been following closely).  I pay less attention to studies by groups with a vested interest in having 3-C either built or not built.

 

So what makes it "half-hearted" when compared to all the other states that have successful rail systems?