Rightfully or wrongfully, I believe there is a certain stigma that comes along with a bus ride.  I can't imagine that a bus could possibly attract the same clientele that a train does.  I think many people who would use the 3-C, believe that a bus ride is beneath them. 

 

For those opposed to the 3-C, I have to ask when was the last time you were on a train?  Give it a shot before you solidify your opinion.  Take the kids/family on a train ride (enjoy the Cuyahoga Scenic Railway if you live in NEO) and see for yourself how it feels, the options you have while in route, etc. 

KJP, I think you had mentioned that the 3 C would be getting renovated railcars. Well rolling by the Brookpark Rapid station this morning were some "antique" Norfolk Southern passenger cars. These aren't the renovated cars you were talking about right? ;)

 

BTW, do you know what/where/why they are doing here

 

Noozer got it right. That's NS Office Car Special -- a train for Norfolk Southern company executives to either inspect the right of way or to show it off for prospective shippers seeking to locate along their rail system.

 

Rebuilding rail cars is a low-cost, short-term fix. This can get you decent rail cars for 5-10 years before they have to be replaced with new equipment that can last 30+ years. The desire for Ohio is to buy new rail cars at several million dollars each with 100% federal funds now, or refurbish cars now at perhaps one-third the price, wait 5-10 years, then buy new cars with 5-10 years of price inflation built-in and having to come up with a 20 percent match of state funds.

 

If you buy new cars now, you won't have to worry about this as an expense to the state until perhaps the 2040s. But some difficult choices may have to be made on what the state can afford to do. Of course, every 10 years or so, Ohio could keep acquiring the next set of hand-me-down cars and refurbishing them.....

 

There's no right answer.

Best line ever on the Dispatch.com reader forum regarding the latest 3C train schedule....

 

George G wrote:

 

Including stops, that's pretty good. I know that train would shave 3 hours and a couple hundred dollars off of my trip because my wife won't bug me to stop at those damn factory outlets in Lodi.

 

  "Sorry, I'd rather a smooth ride on steel rails, with a roomy seat and the option of walking into a cafe or bistro car for coffee and a snack on the way to a business meeting... or a beer on the way home"

 

  I prefer the train as well - but I prefer a real bus over an imaginary train. The train doesn't do me any good if it never gets off the drawing board. "A living dog is better than a dead lion."

 

  "When was the last time you were on a train?"

    2007, on the TGV, SNCF, ICE, S-Bahn, and others during an 11-day tour of 11 European cities. It was a wonderful experience, and really shows what the U.S. is lacking. Driving home from airport was a big downer.

 

    "I still maintain that most people who compare bus and train as if they are interchangeable have either never ridden a train or never ridden a bus before."

 

    Not sure if that comment was directed at me, but I have ridden both. A particular story that I remember is one time when I couldn't get a train ticket because the train was booked, so I took a 10-hour bus ride instead. Everything came out OK in the end.

 

  "Rail has numerous advantages over bus..."

  Yes, I know. But sometimes the bus has the advantage. How about ability to use existing highway infrastructure, choice of routes, choice of schedules, ability to adjust routes, access to central cities, familiarity to riders, and a very important one, capital cost?

 

    Yes, I understand the comforts of a train and the stigma of a bus, and that those two things will affect ridership. Yet, the choice is basicly of technology. Riders don't really care about the technology. They care about schedule, access, price, and service. In theory, a bus could carry a cafe. An RV is basicly the same vehicle as a bus, except that it was designed to carry a handful of people in comfort rather than a crowd in coach.

 

    Megabus is quite successful between Cincinnati and Chicago. Compare to the similar Amtrak route.

 

    If nothing else, a 3-C bus line could be used to develop the ridership, and if the economics warrent it, the bus could be replaced by a train later.

 

    In any case, excessive highway-bashing doesn't help the case for a 3-C passenger railroad.

I know there is a stigma to bus travel in the US, but other countries do have multiple levels of bus service, which approximate a business or first-class experience.  For example, this spring I flew into Merida, Mexico and took the ADO Platino service to Cancun.  The bus had 25 reclining seats in a 1-2 configuration, with footrests, individual TV's in the headrest, curtains to block out light, and a coffee station in the rear.  It was easily the most comfortable bus ride I've ever been on.  (Granted there was no traffic and no delays en-route.)  If I had that option to travel to Cincinnati, I'd probably be just as happy with bus as with rail.  OTOH, make me choose between existing Greyhound-level service and Amtrak, and I'll be waiting for you trackside.

 

Photo tour of an ADO Platino interior: http://www.uno.com.mx/english/serv_abordo.htm

 

ADO commercial:

 

 

We already have 3-C buses.  In fact, no less than 6 are departing Cleveland today.  Approx. 5 hour ride. 

 

 

Select Departure Schedule for Wednesday, September 29, 2010 

 

Departs    Arrives    Duration  Transfers Carrier  Schedule

04:30am  10:25am  5h, 55m    0            GLI      1537

09:30am  02:40pm  5h, 10m    0            GLI      4381

02:45pm  07:40pm  4h, 55m    0            GLI      1117

06:05pm  11:20pm  5h, 15m    0            LFL      0011

06:30pm  11:35pm  5h, 5m      0          GLI      1157

11:00pm  03:40am  4h, 40m    0          GLI      4387

 

LFL: LAKE FRONT LINES

GLI: GREYHOUND LINES, INC.

 

 

How To Pay For High-Speed Rail

September 28, 2010

by Lee Drutman

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

Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

 

 

President Obama has been quite supportive of building high-speed rail. In January he announced an $8 billion down payment. But that was just a start. Building high-speed rail is a major investment, and the big question is: how will we pay for it, especially in a time of increasing federal deficits?

 

PPI Fellow Mark Reutter has some ideas, and he writes about them in a new policy memo that PPI is releasing today. The memo is called: “ A smart way to finance high-speed rail: Restructuring the Highway Trust Fund into a results-driven transportation fund.”

 

 

Full story at: http://www.progressivefix.com/

 

Full report at: http://www.progressivefix.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/2010_Reutter_Smart-Way-to-Finance-HSR.pdf

Ohio lawmakers fight against 3C rail plan

 

BY KENT MALLETT • CentralOhio.com •

September 29, 2010

 

NEWARK -- State Rep. Jay Hottinger, R-Newark, has

asked Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to

stop the Ohio Department of Transportation from

spending money on the proposed 3C rail plan.

 

Hottinger's letter, signed by 38 of 46 Republican

members of the Ohio House, comes after a similar

letter, signed by Republican senators, from State

Sen. David Goodman, R-New Albany, two weeks ago.

 

Full story at: http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/article/20100929/NEWS01/9290317

We already have 3-C buses. In fact, no less than 6 are departing Cleveland today. Approx. 5 hour ride.

 

 

Select Departure Schedule for Wednesday, September 29, 2010

 

Departs   Arrives   Duration   Transfers Carrier Schedule

04:30am   10:25am   5h, 55m   0 GLI 1537

09:30am   02:40pm   5h, 10m   0 GLI 4381

02:45pm   07:40pm   4h, 55m   0 GLI 1117

06:05pm   11:20pm   5h, 15m   0 LFL 0011

06:30pm   11:35pm   5h, 5m   0   GLI   1157

11:00pm   03:40am   4h, 40m   0   GLI   4387

 

LFL: LAKE FRONT LINES

GLI: GREYHOUND LINES, INC.

 

 

 

That doesn't include the extra buses they have to charter to carry those on waiting lists who didn't pay the $5 per-boarding fee because Greyhound overbooked the buses. At Cleveland, Greyhound/Lakefront sometimes has to charter two extra buses because they sold three times as many tickets than they had seats for on a single departure.

 

Now doesn't this demand suggest we could support passenger rail? And doesn't Ohio deserve better than a bus service that any old Third World country could have? Or are we in Ohio so content to be mediocre? We have the funding. It's time to stop dis-believing in ourselves.

Ohio lawmakers fight against 3C rail plan

 

BY KENT MALLETT • CentralOhio.com •

September 29, 2010

 

NEWARK -- State Rep. Jay Hottinger, R-Newark, has

asked Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to

stop the Ohio Department of Transportation from

spending money on the proposed 3C rail plan.

 

Hottinger's letter, signed by 38 of 46 Republican

members of the Ohio House, comes after a similar

letter, signed by Republican senators, from State

Sen. David Goodman, R-New Albany, two weeks ago.

 

Full story at: http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/article/20100929/NEWS01/9290317

 

Why would you sign a petition blocking having the study done?  It's not even Ohio money, and isn't its needed info??

Because too many Ohioans want to shun lifeboats like 3C because the great ship they're on is unsinkable, or so they think...

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply

Ohio lawmakers fight against 3C rail plan

 

BY KENT MALLETT CentralOhio.com

September 29, 2010

 

NEWARK -- State Rep. Jay Hottinger, R-Newark, has

asked Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to

stop the Ohio Department of Transportation from

spending money on the proposed 3C rail plan.

 

Hottinger's letter, signed by 38 of 46 Republican

members of the Ohio House, comes after a similar

letter, signed by Republican senators, from State

Sen. David Goodman, R-New Albany, two weeks ago.

 

Full story at: http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/article/20100929/NEWS01/9290317

 

Why would you sign a petition blocking having the study done?  It's not even Ohio money, and isn't its needed info??

 

An excellent question. These same legislators clamor for answers, but won't allow the answers to be sought.

Development of a rail system in Ohio is worth pursuing

Youngstown Vindicator

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

 

People who can remember excursions by passenger train from downtown Youngstown stations to Cleveland or Pittsburgh for a ball game or a day of shopping are fewer and fewer.

 

Seventy-five years ago, special events in Cleveland warranted special trains. Fifty years ago hundreds of kids who performed safety patrol duties near their schools would be rewarded by the Safety Council and Police Department with a train ride and an Indians game. Over the years, those special train rides, as well as daily commuter trains to Cleveland, disappeared.

 

America, it seems, had outgrown trains, at least for trips that could be made by car. And most longer trips were made by plane.

 

Full editorial at: http://www.vindy.com/news/2010/sep/29/development-of-a-rail-system-in-ohio-is-/

 

These same legislators clamor for answers, but won't allow the answers to be sought.

 

I think it's more along the lines that they DON'T want the answers, because it would show their opposition of the project is flawed.  If they stop the answers from coming, they can continue to "claim" that they want answers, but in reality they're just posturing. 

Akron Beacon is on board as is Vindicator.  I would think the Dispatch should be on board. I'm sure the DDN is.  I would mainly just wonder about the Cinci papers.  3C IS a jobs bill!  Lots of steel will be used for upgrades of the track and building new locomotives.  Many machine shops will receive work for this project either directly or indirectly.  Automobiles are getting more and more away from using steel.  By supporting this bill, it is hitting the sweet spot of the pool of un- and underemployed. 

 

I cannot think of a negative for the 3C.  It gets more (bad, distracted, and/or sleepy) drivers off of I-71.  Less constant traffic jams means less wear and tear on the road.  Rail improvements help make Ohio more competitive for rail freight.  A small on-going stipend of between $10-17 million a year to keep it going is a pittance compared to the rest of the State of Ohio budget.  People who are unable to drive or do not have access to a car(or a car that can safely go long distances) are able to use this service.  Seriously think how many people drive around with handicap stickers.  You can probably quintuple that for the amount of people that are too young to drive, too severely disabled, or economically disadvantaged.  The Repuplican argument never looks at that population which is obviously in the multiples of millions in Ohio alone.  If they were doing their job, that alone should make this service worthwhile, let alone the obvious use of able bodied people with drivers licenses and insurance that might travel along that particular route.

 

One last comment,  rail is how the cities of Ohio grew.  If a comparison of growth rates of the cities of Ohio are compared to the growth of service in rail from 1900 to 1960 it is quite evident that passenger rail helps cities grow.  Once highways became the norm, sprawl happened since train depots were not important to live near and obviously the cheaper land and taxes.  These days distance to an airport is far more of a consideration where one lives.  I truly believe that 3C will kickstart billions in investment in the downtowns of all the cities involved.

Wasn't Hottinger one of the people who voted FOR seeking federal funding for this project?

 

Wasn't Hottinger one of the people who voted FOR seeking federal funding for this project?

 

 

Yep, but he says he wanted multi-route statewide planning. That is underway, too. But state law says 3C is the first route the state must pursue...

 

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4981

 

4981.04 Plan for construction and operation of intercity conventional or high speed passenger transportation system.

 

(A) The Ohio rail development commission shall prepare a plan for the construction and operation of an intercity conventional or high speed passenger transportation system in this state. The system shall be constructed and operated by the commission. The plan for construction and operation shall be based on existing studies, and shall state that the system’s initial route will connect Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati and any points in between those cities determined by the authority.

 

 

Even if it costs $10-$17 mil to run annually, what is the total Ohio Department of Transportation annual budget?  Doesn't this amount pale in comparison?

ODOT's biennial budget is $6 billion. $3.2B in 2010 and $2.8B in 2011. So the 3C operating budget of $10-$17 million is 1/3 to 1/2 of 1% (0.33%-0.5%) of ODOT's budget.

Not only does it pale compared to ODOT's FY2009 budget of $3.6 billion and FY2010 budget of $2.6 billion....

 

It pales compared to ODOT's salt budget of $78 million per year.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/news/Pages/ODOTbegins%E2%80%98WorkingforWinter%E2%80%99beforefirstSnowflakefalls.aspx

 

It pales next to ODOT's $216 million shortfall for FY2011:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/policy/2010-2011BusinessPlan/Documents/ODOT2010-2011BusinessPlan-WEB.pdf (Pg. 37)

 

And it pales next to ODOT's expected middle-range scenario $1.5 billion shortfall between now and 2017, or its expected worst-case scenario of $2.8 billion shortfall over the same period:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/policy/2010-2011BusinessPlan/Documents/ODOT2010-2011BusinessPlan-WEB.pdf (Pg. 34)

 

That shortfall is due to declining driving because the largest demographic group in American history, ages 21-30, is driving 7 percent less than the same age group did in the 1990s.

 

And that shortfall is because the next-largest demographic group in American history, the Baby Boom, starts turning 65 years old next year.

 

Oh, and then there's that oil shortage thing by 2015...

 

But let's keep building more highways and sending rail money back to Washington.

I think it's more along the lines that they DON'T want the answers, because it would show their opposition of the project is flawed. If they stop the answers from coming, they can continue to "claim" that they want answers, but in reality they're just posturing.

 

That's exactly right.  Although I don't really think the Republicans will actively seek to block implementation of 3C if they take the Governorship and the House (Ohio), the only way one can be sure that they don't block 3C is by voting for the Democratic candidate.  The idea that a legislator can't get "answers" is simply ludicrous.

The Republican threat to blow up high-speed rail

New research shows fast trains boost GDP growth. But GOP victories in November will derail current progress

By Andrew Leonard 

Reuters

 

A high-speed train travels on the newly built Shanghai-Nanjing railway in Shanghai.High-speed rail links, conclude researchers at the London School of Economics and the University of Hamburg, contribute to economic growth.

 

The researchers studied a high-speed railway linking the German cities of Cologne and Frankfurt and determined that towns connected to the new line "saw their GDP rise by at least 2.7 percent compared to neighbors not on the route."

 

Full story at: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2010/09/29/republicans_set_to_derail_high_speed_trains

Ohio isn't the only state with a gubernatorial candidate claiming passenger rail is a "boondoggle" and claims he will send the money back...here's an example of a "cheesehead" running for Governor in Wisconsin.

 

Walker wants to stop the train, but can he?

 

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_56833f98-ca75-11df-98da-001cc4c03286.html

Ohio isn't the only state with a gubernatorial candidate claiming passenger rail is a "boondoggle" and claims he will send the money back...here's an example of a "cheesehead" running for Governor in Wisconsin.

 

Walker wants to stop the train, but can he?

 

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_56833f98-ca75-11df-98da-001cc4c03286.html

 

Ugh, I can't believe he is so close to becoming Governor.  I can guarantee you that no one in the City of Milwaukee will be voting for that man.  He was booed at last year's Christmas Tree lighting.  Everyone hates him here because everything is controlled by the County here.  Unfortunately the rest of the state doesn't live in Milwaukee. 

 

At least Ohio's Republican nominee for Governor graduated from college...count your blessings, Ohio.

I know this answer is probably somewhere in this thread (search engine didn't give any results and I don't want to look through 137 pages :)) but I'm curious as to how much it costs a year to maintain Interstate 71 from the interchange with I-90 in Cleveland to the Cincinnati-Kentucky border. I'm willing to bet that it would still be less than the 3-C.

 

Sadly, I don't think even that's going to convince the naysayers. Even if the train's building and operating costs will be literally hundreds of times less than ODOT's yearly budget, they'd rather continue spending money on highways because "they work" (or at least that's what they want themselves to believe).  The state's entire budget could go toward the freeways, and it won't matter to them. But god forbid you try spending even a fraction of it on something new.

 

The "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" line of thinking is what the 3-C is up against.

^Interesting thought, but the logic is partially flawed.  3-C will be a commuter rail.  It won't carry truck type freight.  You still need highways for truck traffic even if you could get all passenger traffic to ride a train or some type of public transit...

 

I know alot of people on this forum are in love with this train idea, but you really have to ask yourself why.  Why is it better than cars?  Why don't people take more public transit now, even when it's available?  Why can't it be done for less money? 

 

I hear people discussing options of somehow "forcing" people to take public transit or penalizing them for driving a car...  this is America, build a better mousetrap, don't wrap your idea in legal regulations and mandates so users don't have a choice...

^Interesting thought, but the logic is partially flawed. 3-C will be a commuter rail. It won't carry truck type freight. You still need highways for truck traffic even if you could get all passenger traffic to ride a train or some type of public transit...

 

I know alot of people on this forum are in love with this train idea, but you really have to ask yourself why. Why is it better than cars? Why don't people take more public transit now, even when it's available? Why can't it be done for less money?

 

I hear people discussing options of somehow "forcing" people to take public transit or penalizing them for driving a car... this is America, build a better mousetrap, don't wrap your idea in legal regulations and mandates so users don't have a choice...

 

First...the improvements to the 3C rail corridor will not only enable passenger service, but will also improve and incrase the flow of freight traffic for the host freight railroads.  So there will be an impact on highway truck traffic.

 

Second...."Why is it better than cars?"  Less pollution, less gasoline use, more time to do something more productive than steer, brake, accelerate (over and over and over), safer than driving....

 

Third... haven't heard (read) anyone saying motorists should be "forced" from their cars.  I like driving my Honda Civic.  But if I want to go to Cleveland or Cincinnati, I am the one who is "forced" to drive, because there is no other option (aside fom crappy Greyhound service).  BTW: over 8% of Ohio's population either cannot drive or do not drive due to physical or economic limitations.

^Interesting thought, but the logic is partially flawed.  3-C will be a commuter rail.  It won't carry truck type freight.

 

Where did you get this information?  This is completely wrong.  The benefits to freight traffic (which will be carried on the same line) have been enumerated countless times in this thread.

 

Why don't people take more public transit now, even when it's available?  Why can't it be done for less money? 

 

More people don't take public transit because good public transit isn't available.

 

It can't be done for less money because all modes of transportation are expensive.  Why can't roads be done for less money?  They're far more costly than trains.

 

I hear people discussing options of somehow "forcing" people to take public transit or penalizing them for driving a car...  this is America, build a better mousetrap, don't wrap your idea in legal regulations and mandates so users don't have a choice...

 

That's what we're trying to do.  Actually, as far as the government mandating anything, they're "forcing" us to use cars, since a lot of our tax money goes towards highways regardless of whether we use them or not with no viable alternative.  If the 3C gets built, noone will be forced to use it, and roads will still be a great alternative if you wish to use them.  And the costs paid from taxes will still be MUCH lower per person than for highways.

 

How could you even talk about people being "forced" to ride trains with the current transportation situation in this country?

^Interesting thought, but the logic is partially flawed. 3-C will be a commuter rail. It won't carry truck type freight.

 

Where did you get this information? This is completely wrong. The benefits to freight traffic (which will be carried on the same line) have been enumerated countless times in this thread.

 

Why don't people take more public transit now, even when it's available? Why can't it be done for less money?

 

More people don't take public transit because good public transit isn't available.

 

 

That's the key.  It would be nice if this was in conjunction with an overall shift in transit funding.  I still think the best idea for "The Stimulus" would to have spent it exclusively on building out rail lines in urban areas and watch the growth syphon off of that.

That's the key.  It would be nice if this was in conjunction with an overall shift in transit funding.

 

Completely agree.

 

I still think the best idea for "The Stimulus" would to have spent it exclusively on building out rail lines in urban areas and watch the growth syphon off of that.

 

I see where you're coming from, and it's definitely a valid argument.  However, I feel that both pieces are necessary and if you only have money for one, it's hard to say which is more important than the other.  I think having intercity trains in place can help encourage suburbanites that they should support urban public transit because they would be more likely to use it through necessity created by trips on the intercity trains.  If we built better urban public transit, I feel many suburbanites would continue to look at it as just something "those people" use.

The assumption for many is that we have a free market in this country. In some cases we do. In transportation we do not. Consider whether private enterprise or the public sectors owns various elements of the transportation system, whether its the right of way, financing mechanisms, the traffic control systems, the stations/terminals/interchanges, the storage areas/servicing/maintenance facilities, and the vehicles. If the private sector owns all of these elements with little or no government regulation and/or subsidization, then it is true free enterprise. The only one that comes close is freight railroading, which has a private-enterprise ownership check-mark next to all of those categories, and has some government regulation. All the other modes are in at least three of the above categories. But even passenger rail uses mostly railroad-owned rights of way, stations and traffic control systems -- all fixed, capital-intensive costs that do not vary significantly with use. What is noticeable about passenger rail is that its operating costs are directly subsidized by grants.

 

If we transferred the ownership of most railroad infrastructure from stockholders to the government, and the financing mechanisms from private capital markets to the government, it would be parallel with the ownerships and funding mechanisms of highways, aviation and waterways. But it will be a cold day in hell before the railroads relinquish their properties or funding control to the government. If you are true free marketeer, you should be arguing for the sale of highways, airports, air traffic control systems and waterways to private enterprise.

 

That would likely end the subsidies to passenger rail and transit.

I just wish that Obama would flip-flop on his endorsement of passenger rail for just a few months, so that we can get our train when Kasich is elected.

 

Fact is, Kasich is sadly winning this debate in the public forum from what I can tell.  I was talking to a Strickland supporter yesterday... a union guy who is backing Strickland 100%.  But when the 3-C came up, he said... "you mean the slow-train to Cincy".  I asked what he envisions it being and, sure enough, he was picturing a train moving along down to Cincy at 39mph.... TOP SPEED!!!

U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown interviews with OSU's "The Lantern" about the need to keep college graduates in Ohio and the 3C Quick Start"

 

Sen. Sherrod Brown: We need to keep college graduates in Ohio

 

Full story at: http://www.thelantern.com/campus/sen-sherrod-brown-we-need-to-keep-college-graduates-in-ohio-1.1655973

^ We need to attract college graduates to Ohio. We need to export college graduates from Ohio, 1) so they can be ambassadors of the state, and 2) so they can gain an appreciation of where they grew up in the context of a global perspective.

 

3C will help attract graduates as well as enhance the appreciation of those ambassadors who leave.

 

Boomeranging college grads would be a better goal than "keeping" them.

 

Of course my focus here is those who grew up in Ohio. For those who moved to Ohio for college, it would be nice to keep them around or boomerang them. It's also a good goal to get people who grew up outside Ohio to come for college. 3C can also help in this regard!

 

My main point is: focusing on preventing Ohio's college grads from moving elsewhere is a recipe for an insular culture, which is one of the things Ohio suffers from.

 

One symptom of this insular culture is widespread opposition to the 3C and other rail transit! We desperately need citizens who've experienced life outside Ohio.

Ohio isn't the only state with a gubernatorial candidate claiming passenger rail is a "boondoggle" and claims he will send the money back...here's an example of a "cheesehead" running for Governor in Wisconsin.

 

Walker wants to stop the train, but can he?

 

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_56833f98-ca75-11df-98da-001cc4c03286.html

 

Note that the Republican candidate expects the Republican Party to regain control of Congress and then amend the law to allow the rail funding to be diverted to highways.  Although he hasn't said so publicly, I would not be surprised to hear that Kasich was reading from the same script.

^^Seriously don't get your comment.  If you mean insular, that we don't have droves of college students/grads that have experience riding high speed rail in Europe/Asia, what is that going to get you?  Plenty of grad students have experiences outside of Ohio.  Just not on high speed trains. 

 

Ohio already exports enough college students.  People are not geese.  Sorry.

 

You're final comment is that we need people in Ohio that will be pro-rail.  I believe we already do in northern Ohio.  Cincinnati may be anti-3C since they aren't getting a bullet train to Cbus.  But I feel most people elsewhere in Ohio get it.  Also, I think there are many people that live in northern Kentucky that would be pro-rail and active users of the rail system but obviously have no voice in this matter..

^ Cincinnati alone is not making this a successful wedge issue for Kasich. It seems like some people in northern Ohio think they live in some liberal wonderland, and Cincinnati keeps the state down. Sorry, but if that were the case, Cleveland/Columbus/Toledo/Akron should outweigh the Cincy/Dayton contingent every time. Unfortunately, northern Ohio is not a liberal wonderland. And, for that matter, southwest Ohio is not a conservative oasis. Which Ohio city, after all, is the only one currently funding a new rail project?

 

New York is not a thriving city because it retains people who grew up or went to college there. In fact, most citizens of NYC only live there for a relatively small portion of their life. Successful cities, states, and regions don't worry about how many citizens are moving away. They don't have to, because they have a "product" which draws more people in to replace those who left. Part of that product, in fact, is the people leaving the state to seize opportunities and success outside the state's borders.

 

The Plain Dealer and Dispatch haven't exactly exhibited the enlightened pro-rail stance which you claim is so pervasive outside the Cincinnati area.

Made official by the FRA today....

 

FRA 19-10

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Contact: Rob Kulat

Tel: 202-493-6024

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood Announces $235 Million in Recovery Act Dollars for California, North Carolina, Ohio and Maryland High Speed Rail

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced $235 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars for high-speed rail projects in California, North Carolina, Ohio and Maryland.

 

“President Obama’s bold vision for high-speed rail is a game-changer for transportation in the United States,” said Secretary LaHood. “This undertaking will not only create good jobs and reinvigorate our manufacturing base, it’s also going to relieve congestion on our roadways and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

 

The California High Speed Rail Authority received $194 million preliminary engineering and environmental analysis for 520 miles of its high-speed rail corridor.

 

The North Carolina Department of Transportation received $17 million to improve rail stations between Charlotte and Raleigh.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation received $14.9 million for preliminary engineering and environmental analysis for the 3-C corridor, which connects Cincinnati through Dayton, Columbus to Cleveland.

 

The Maryland Department of Transportation received $9.4 million for improvements to the BWI rail station at Baltimore-Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airport.

 

“We are making substantial progress in providing funds to states so they may start construction projects or advance their necessary planning,” said Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph C. Szabo. “We are immediately put people to work while making long term infrastructure improvements which will change the way we travel in the United States.”

^ Cincinnati alone is not making this a successful wedge issue for Kasich. It seems like some people in northern Ohio think they live in some liberal wonderland, and Cincinnati keeps the state down. Sorry, but if that were the case, Cleveland/Columbus/Toledo/Akron should outweigh the Cincy/Dayton contingent every time. Unfortunately, northern Ohio is not a liberal wonderland. And, for that matter, southwest Ohio is not a conservative oasis. Which Ohio city, after all, is the only one currently funding a new rail project?

 

Well it is a fact that Cleveland is far more liberal than Cincinnati.  I would say the reason the liberals don't outweigh the conservatives is because Columbus and Dayton are more politically aligned with SWO than NEO.

^Rural Ohio - from largely rural swaths like SE Ohio, to slivers like Geauga County here in NEO - also keep the balance.

 

I wouldn't say that there is THAT big of a difference between Cincy proper and Cleveland proper in terms of political affiliation (could be wrong though).  Cleveland is probably more liberal, but not as much as people like to paint it as.  The bigger difference, IMO, would come into play when the metros are considered and is enlarged when the regions are compared (NEO vs. SWO).

^ I don't dispute that, but I was responding to someone who said:

 

Cincinnati may be anti-3C since they aren't getting a bullet train to Cbus.  But I feel most people elsewhere in Ohio get it.

 

That's just nonsense.

 

It's not really relevant to this discussion, but NEO is largely full of "labor liberals", which is to say there is a great deal of social conservatism, regardless of the lean to the left.

 

Political leanings aside, I think it's important for the state to have a larger share of citizens who have living experience outside the state's borders -- regardless of whether they're from northern, southern, eastern or western Ohio. I also think that's relevant to the 3C discussion. Sorry if that offends some people.

Political discussions are fine. Outside-Ohio experiences are fine. ...Only if they are kept to the 3C topic. Thanks.

Political discussions are fine. Outside-Ohio experiences are fine. ...Only if they are kept to the 3C topic. Thanks.

 

Amen to that.

I thought I made clear why the topic is relevant to 3C.

^Rural Ohio - from largely rural swaths like SE Ohio, to slivers like Geauga County here in NEO - also keep the balance.

 

I wouldn't say that there is THAT big of a difference between Cincy proper and Cleveland proper in terms of political affiliation (could be wrong though).  Cleveland is probably more liberal, but not as much as people like to paint it as.  The bigger difference, IMO, would come into play when the metros are considered and is enlarged when the regions are compared (NEO vs. SWO).

 

Need to remember that Western Ohio is all Republican all the time.  That is what effectively balances out the NEO, Dayton, and Toledo Democratic strongholds.  In terms of the 3C, it is the conservatives in the rural portions of the state that are largely crying for it to be killed.  Logically they would.  It has little to no impact on them and costs them tax dollars.  We need to convince them how the entire system (Ohio Hub), when complete, would serve their areas and help them grow.

 

I thought I made clear why the topic is relevant to 3C.

 

I think KJP was just using "preemptive moderating" because he's seen conversations run off track before, not necessarily saying your post was off topic.

OK....so can we get back to the topic?  I think the point has been made about Ohio politics.

Republicans or not, how can everyone be made to understand the 3C is a viable project??  The studies continue to be better and better.  Now the term antiquated system/39mph train are void, since we have a 50mph average.  I think rural communities seek to benefit immensely, with bus connections and maybe future passenger rail lines.

 

  "How can everyone be made to understand the 3C is a viable project??"

 

  Get it running! If it isn't possible to get the 3C running, then get a smaller project running! Maybe a Cleveland - Columbus, or Cincinnati - Dayton line would be viable at less cost.

 

    The 3-C passengar rail idea has been around for at least 30 years. There are people in this state that are just tired of hearing about it.

 

    The annual road budgets in the 3 urban counties of Hamilton, Franklin, and Cuyahoga for just one year could pay for the capital cost of the 3-C railroad. There is plenty of money to get it done, but there isn't the political will. Studies are useful for designers, but not necessarily for politicians. The majority of voters in this state just aren't interested. Yet, if it was actually built, they would be asking to make it better.