Currently sitting in the parking lot that is I71 in the middle of nowhere south of Mansfield (don't worry I'm not driving). Yeah, we don't need alternative ways to travel between our cities. :roll:

 

Just wait till Thanksgiving Eve if you want to see a linear parking lot from Cleveland to Columbus.... I'm with ya on the need for trains.

^ Thats ironic, my mother is currently in route from Columbus up to Cleveland for the weekend, she just called me to bitch about the traffic on 71 lol..... Yea, we don't need 3-C

^ Thats ironic, my mother is currently in route from Columbus up to Cleveland for the weekend, she just called me to bitch about the traffic on 71 lol..... Yea, we don't need 3-C

 

Have her write a letter to the editor and e-mail a copy to Kasich.

^Better yet have him ride the route by car.

If we don't get rail as an alternative we can start a new movement called "All ABORT Ohio!" Because we know how much Kasich cares about brain drain/people leaving Ohio for another place!

 

Have her write a letter to the editor and e-mail a copy to Kasich.

 

Contact Gov.-elect John Kasich:

 

His campaign headquarters will serve as the location for his transition team:

 

Gov.-elect John Kasich

340 East Gay Street

Columbus, OH 43215

614-824-2017

 

As might his e-mail address:

[email protected]

 

As might the e-mail for his former campaign manager Beth Hansen , now his chief of staff:

[email protected]

I feel this deserves posting. 

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/11/09/end-of-the-line.html?sid=101

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/insight/stories/2010/11/14/our-role-is-to-report-not-advocate.html

Currently sitting in the parking lot that is I71 in the middle of nowhere south of Mansfield (don't worry I'm not driving). Yeah, we don't need alternative ways to travel between our cities. :roll:

 

The argument that people will trade their cars in for the chance to relax on a train to go between the 3 cities is not working, time to give it up!! For those without a car who need to get to a place, there are options, its call Greyhound, people use that all the time.

 

I do not mean to sound short but clearly, you guys are not selling your argument for passenger rail. When 70% of the people come out against it, you clearly have a preception problem. Calling people ignorant or fools if they disagree with you will not solve your problem but only make you be the bigger fool.

 

Why not frame the argument differently. For example, Instead of framing it as a choice between trains and cars (which right now is a losing argument) frame it in more of a regional perspective such as a choice between planes and trains. What is the key component of both? With trains and planes, both take off from a fixed station and arrive at a fixed station. People drive because they want that independence in travel. People fly because they want to get someone quicker than driving so they give up the independence of the car. Well, with secruity measures on planes now, and the greater inconveinence it has become to fly (regionally), it makes rail more attractive. for me, framing the argument of taking the train to Cleveland as opposed to a cramped regional jet gets some traction. Not sure if it would work, but hey, cant hurt your preception problem.

I think it should be framed in terms of Ohio being left behind compared to other states in the nation and region.  Even people who could give a rat's tail about trains get pissed when it is pointed out how backward they are.

 

The argument that people will trade their cars in for the chance to relax on a train to go between the 3 cities is not working, time to give it up!! For those without a car who need to get to a place, there are options, its call Greyhound, people use that all the time.

 

Usually people who suggest Greyhound is a usuable alternative have never ridden Greyhound. Start by going on the Greyhound site, look at the 3C schedule options and look at the fares (compare them with the 3C speed, departures and fares). How do you get by bus to Columbus in time for a 10 a.m. meeting or, worse still, a 9:30 a.m. state agency hearing? Where are the suburban stations? How do you guarantee a seat unless you pay extra for Priority Seating, which is available only at Cleveland and Cincinnati. Anyplace else and you risk being placed on a waiting list for a later bus. And then there is Dayton which has no Greyhound bus service. Instead, it stops at Trotwood which is a 50-minute MVRTA bus ride from central Dayton where 20 percent of households have no car. Then you have to transfer to another bus at Columbus to reach Cleveland.

 

Yep, that's what a so-called first-world country calls civilized transportation. Don't you think we can do better than that???

 

 

I do not mean to sound short but clearly, you guys are not selling your argument for passenger rail. When 70% of the people come out against it, you clearly have a preception problem. Calling people ignorant or fools if they disagree with you will not solve your problem but only make you be the bigger fool.

 

When you say foolish, unsupported things, then you get labeled accordingly. So what is this 70 percent who are against it? Can you cite a source please??

 

++ In one poll, 64% of Ohioans said they supported Strickland's 3C rail project (Quinnipiac University poll, 2009)

++ In other poll, 80% of Ohioans said they supported state efforts to develop passenger rail statewide (Ohio State University poll, 2001).

 

 

Why not frame the argument differently. For example, Instead of framing it as a choice between trains and cars (which right now is a losing argument) frame it in more of a regional perspective such as a choice between planes and trains. What is the key component of both? With trains and planes, both take off from a fixed station and arrive at a fixed station. People drive because they want that independence in travel. People fly because they want to get someone quicker than driving so they give up the independence of the car. Well, with secruity measures on planes now, and the greater inconveinence it has become to fly (regionally), it makes rail more attractive. for me, framing the argument of taking the train to Cleveland as opposed to a cramped regional jet gets some traction. Not sure if it would work, but hey, cant hurt your preception problem.

 

Because of the 3.75 million annual trips made between 3C metro areas, driving comprises 3.4 million trips, bus has 300,000 trips and flying has less than 50,000 trips. Experience with other, similar travel corridors with similar modal splits, shows that most of your modal diversions come from drivers.

 

And in nearly all cases, ridership has exceed expectations. In some cases dramatically. See you on the train, Brutus.

Currently sitting in the parking lot that is I71 in the middle of nowhere south of Mansfield (don't worry I'm not driving). Yeah, we don't need alternative ways to travel between our cities. :roll:

 

The argument that people will trade their cars in for the chance to relax on a train to go between the 3 cities is not working, time to give it up!! For those without a car who need to get to a place, there are options, its call Greyhound, people use that all the time.

 

I do not mean to sound short but clearly, you guys are not selling your argument for passenger rail. When 70% of the people come out against it, you clearly have a preception problem. Calling people ignorant or fools if they disagree with you will not solve your problem but only make you be the bigger fool.

 

Why not frame the argument differently. For example, Instead of framing it as a choice between trains and cars (which right now is a losing argument) frame it in more of a regional perspective such as a choice between planes and trains. What is the key component of both? With trains and planes, both take off from a fixed station and arrive at a fixed station. People drive because they want that independence in travel. People fly because they want to get someone quicker than driving so they give up the independence of the car. Well, with secruity measures on planes now, and the greater inconveinence it has become to fly (regionally), it makes rail more attractive. for me, framing the argument of taking the train to Cleveland as opposed to a cramped regional jet gets some traction. Not sure if it would work, but hey, cant hurt your preception problem.

 

Your logic is laughable.....surpassed only by the lack of any factual basis for your arguments.

New Study Supports Ohio Rail ServiceWednesday,  November 10, 2010 8:39 PM

ONN

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio has invested millions of dollars in studying high speed rail. It's been a discussion for months, and Gov.-elect John Kasich wants to shut it down.

 

"That train is dead," said Kasich. "I said it during the campaign. It is dead."

 

A new study released on Wednesday by the non-partisan group Ohio PIRG, suggested that Kasich needs to get on board with rail, ONN's Denise Alex reported.

 

Full story at: http://www.onntv.com/live/content/onnnews/stories/2010/11/10/story-3C-Rail.html?sid=102

For Immediate Release:

http://www.ohiopirg.org/newsroom/more-news/more-news/new-ohio-pirg-study-high-speed-rail-can-boost-economy-reduce-traffic

 

Contact:

Jeff Griffin

(614) 228-1447

A News Release

 

New Ohio PIRG Study: High-Speed Rail Can Boost Economy, Reduce Traffic

 

Drawing lessons from other countries, a new study from Ohio PIRG shows that high-speed rail can boost our economy, save energy, curb pollution and provide a popular alternative to congested roads and airports.

 

The report, A Track Record of Success: High-Speed Rail Around the World and Its Promise for America, details a number of examples from around the world that make a variety of cases for high-speed rail. Some of the benefits include:

 

•    Jobs: about 8,000 people were involved in the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link between the tunnel and London

•    Development opportunities near stations: The amount of office space in the area around the rail station in city of Lyon, France has increased by 43%.

•    Economic growth: in Germany, the counties surrounding the towns of Limburg and Montabauer experienced a 2.7% increase in their gross domestic product as a result of the increased access to markets provided by the Frankfurt-Cologne high-speed rail line.

•    Reduced road congestion: high-speed rail service between Madrid and Seville reduced the share of car travel between the two cities from 60% to 34%.

•    Reduced air travel: even in the relatively slow rail service in the U.S. Northeastern Corridor, the rail corridor accounts for 65% of the air-rail market between NY and Washington, DC.

•    Reduced oil dependence: a typical Monday morning business trip between London and Paris via high-speed rail uses approximately a third less energy as a car or plane trip.

 

New high-speed rail development has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. In 2000, the Republican Party Platform called for “the development of a national high-speed passenger railroad system as an instrument of economic development and enhanced mobility.”  In a statement about Ohio PIRG’s report, Glen Bottoms of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation agrees: “This report reinforces our view that building a high-speed rail network is a prudent and cost effective use of America’s resources over the long-term.”

 

 

In Ohio, rail has been viewed as a promising way to connect the major metropolitan areas of Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati, but critics of rail in the state may soon dismantle these plans, ignoring the cost of inaction and the full range of benefits high-speed rail could provide.

 

 

“Now that the election is behind us, it’s time to get serious about high-speed rail. There is no such thing as a Republican or a Democratic rail track,” said Ohio PIRG Program Associate Jeff Griffin, “Our leaders from both parties should support long-term investment in high-speed rail for the benefits it will bring to Ohio.”

#    #    #

Ohio PIRG is a statewide consumer group. Learn more at www.ohiopirg.org 

 

 

Again, both Ken and noozer, I was not trying to attach you only disagree that I do not think you have sold your argument very well. you do not need to call me an idiot (noozer) for not agreeing with you.

 

1) Ken, when I said, 70% was against it, I had not looked a the most rencent data. There have been a number of polls with varying degrees of people who have been for or against the project. Ultimately, most Ohioans are against the 3-C as it has currently been proposed. Now Ken, you go and further prove my point when you quote that 80% are in favor of some sort of passenger rail service in Ohio.  All I was trying to say is that there is a fall off between the people that "support rail" and those for the 3C plan. This is where they need to be sold on the project. Something I think your group could do better.

 

As far as my logic being laughable noozer, if that were the case, the train would already be under construction. It appears there is a disconnect between you and the rest of Ohio, all I was trying to say is re-frame your argument, listen to the de-tractors and come up with a better way to sell the train.

Currently sitting in the parking lot that is I71 in the middle of nowhere south of Mansfield (don't worry I'm not driving).  Yeah, we don't need alternative ways to travel between our cities. :roll:

 

The argument that people will trade their cars in for the chance to relax on a train to go between the 3 cities is not working, time to give it up!! For those without a car who need to get to a place, there are options, its call Greyhound, people use that all the time.

 

I do not mean to sound short but clearly, you guys are not selling your argument for passenger rail. When 70% of the people come out against it, you clearly have a preception problem. Calling people ignorant or fools if they disagree with you will not solve your problem but only make you be the bigger fool.

 

Why not frame the argument differently. For example, Instead of framing it as a choice between trains and cars (which right now is a losing argument) frame it in more of a regional perspective such as a choice between planes and trains. What is the key component of both? With trains and planes, both take off from a fixed station and arrive at a fixed station. People drive because they want that independence in travel. People fly because they want to get someone quicker than driving so they give up the independence of the car. Well, with secruity measures on planes now, and the greater inconveinence it has become to fly (regionally), it makes rail more attractive. for me, framing the argument of taking the train to Cleveland as opposed to a cramped regional jet gets some traction. Not sure if it would work, but hey, cant hurt your preception problem.

 

 

I think it's more a case of critics (incl. Kasich) not being willing to listen. Supporters have made their points over and over in logical, easy to understand terms. Unfortunately, many anti's already had their minds made up and were not about to be persuaded by the facts.

 

Aside from that, we should remember this was also sold as an economic and jobs intiative. Naysayers pooh-poohed the 400 jobs directly created by 3C as well as the thousands (yes thousands) of spinoff jobs thru development around train stations and increased employment on the part of Ohio rail manufacturers, but nothing they propose has the capability to produce similar results.

 

Many of these same critics are not interested in whether the trains actually work; they just view this as a political football and want to send the money back to Washington to Make Obama look bad.

 

Finally, I wonder where you get that 70% disapproval of the 3C trains from? I have kept close watch on this subject and have never seen that number. And no one is proposing to "replace" auto with trains. The idea is to promote jobs and economic development by providing transportation choices we do not have.

I remember a poll with Ohioans 52% against and 41% in favor. But who knows really. 

 

How much would Ohio have to spend on the trains in addition to the $400 million? It's not like they're "free" from the Feds, right?

The polls are really a moot point following the election.

 

Ohio would have had to spend about $3.4 million a year over the first three years and $17 million a year thereafter. All of that would have come from the ODOT budget which is firewalled from the General Revenue Fund and not a part of the projected $8 billion budget hole so frequently mentioned by critics who assert that we "can't afford" the trains. That state share would be more than covered by increased tax revenues from those employed to build operate and maintain the trains, as well as spillover development around the stations.

 

Apparently, this is too hard for some to grasp.  :?

I remember a poll with Ohioans 52% against and 41% in favor. But who knows really.

 

How much would Ohio have to spend on the trains in addition to the $400 million? It's not like they're "free" from the Feds, right?

I remember an issue last year that's much better than any poll. ISSUE 9. We voted No. SO that means we want rail in this State.

Issue 9 was a City of Cincinnati issue, not even a Hamilton County, let alone a State of Ohio issue. 

As far as my logic being laughable noozer, if that were the case, the train would already be under construction. It appears there is a disconnect between you and the rest of Ohio, all I was trying to say is re-frame your argument, listen to the de-tractors and come up with a better way to sell the train.

 

Actually, the disconnect exists between Ohio and the rest of the civilized world.

 

Ohio isn't developing 3C rail ANY DIFFERENTLY than any other introductory train services elsewhere in the U.S. Indeed Ohio is imitating how other successful train services were introduced -- through evolution from modest beginnings. While other states used their own state-taxpayer funds, Ohio has available to it a no-match federal grant to catch up to other states. If we fumble this, we will never have such an opportunity to catch up again.

 

It's time that critics stopped, listened and learned about this "building-block" approach that other states have undertaken to evolve toward high-speed rail.

It is the pro-car forces that keep trying to make this a competition. I'd say that KJP and to a sizable extent most of the supporters on here start w/ passenger rail as a stand alone good that benefits all (usually focusing first on those who don't access or the ability to drive). Passenger rail is the oldest form of non-animal powered ground transit on earth. I'm not sure why rail supporters have to reinvent the wheel to have the better part of the argument.

"It is the pro-car forces that keep trying to make this a competition."

 

Naw, it's just the status-quo versus the challenger.

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

 

 

As far as my logic being laughable noozer, if that were the case, the train would already be under construction. It appears there is a disconnect between you and the rest of Ohio, all I was trying to say is re-frame your argument, listen to the de-tractors and come up with a better way to sell the train.

 

Actually, the disconnect exists between Ohio and the rest of the civilized world.

 

Ohio isn't developing 3C rail ANY DIFFERENTLY than any other introductory train services elsewhere in the U.S. Indeed Ohio is imitating how other successful train services were introduced -- through evolution from modest beginnings. While other states used their own state-taxpayer funds, Ohio has available to it a no-match federal grant to catch up to other states. If we fumble this, we will never have such an opportunity to catch up again.

 

It's time that critics stopped, listened and learned about this "building-block" approach that other states have undertaken to evolve toward high-speed rail.

 

Why the disconnect exists is not relevant.  The point is, there is a disconnect and the current method of promotion is not working for the 3-C project.  but instead of taking a different approach, rail advocates are continually beating the same drum...and when regular folks don't get it, they're blasted for being ignorant or not understanding "this is how it's done".

 

Reminds me of that guy in Office Space screaming at the 2 Bob's "I'M A PEOPLE PERSON.  I DEAL WELL WITH PEOPLE."

 

Look, I support rail and this project.  But the fact remains, even when I try to talk to ALL (not most, or some, but all) of my friends about this they all say the same thing "why wouldn't I just drive?"  The only remotely successful argument I've made is for my Cleveland friends, getting a head start on tailgating when going to Buckeye games

^ The reason many ask why they would "not just drive" is because they have grown up on one model only...and that is...the auto-dependent landscape. Few know no other way or scene....that simple. As for selling it, all egos need to be set aside and those who oppose need to forget what they think they know about rail and/or this project and learn. This would be helped if they had better information distributed to them via mainstream boob media, but they don't.

New leadership unlikely to halt I-70/71 project

Saturday, November 13, 2010  02:54 AM

By Robert Vitale

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

...

 

"If ODOT has it on the board, I wouldn't think it would take a whole lot of convincing to keep it along those lines," said Tom Patton, chairman of the Senate Highways and Transportation Committee.

 

Patton, a Republican from Strongsville, said cutting spending for highway projects couldn't help other parts of the budget because the state is required to dedicate gas-tax money to road construction and maintenance.

 

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/11/13/copy/new-leadership-unlikely-to-halt-i-7071-project.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

 

This is the same Tom Patton who is so viruluntly opposed to the 3-C rail plan, which ODOT already has on the board and funded with money that can't be used for any other purpose.

 

Think there isn't a double standard? Think again.

 

Think opponents of 3-C are not driven by visceral opposition or just raw politics? Think again.

 

^I hate politics...

As far as my logic being laughable noozer, if that were the case, the train would already be under construction. It appears there is a disconnect between you and the rest of Ohio, all I was trying to say is re-frame your argument, listen to the de-tractors and come up with a better way to sell the train.

 

Actually, the disconnect exists between Ohio and the rest of the civilized world.

 

Ohio isn't developing 3C rail ANY DIFFERENTLY than any other introductory train services elsewhere in the U.S. Indeed Ohio is imitating how other successful train services were introduced -- through evolution from modest beginnings. While other states used their own state-taxpayer funds, Ohio has available to it a no-match federal grant to catch up to other states. If we fumble this, we will never have such an opportunity to catch up again.

 

It's time that critics stopped, listened and learned about this "building-block" approach that other states have undertaken to evolve toward high-speed rail.

 

Why the disconnect exists is not relevant. The point is, there is a disconnect and the current method of promotion is not working for the 3-C project. but instead of taking a different approach, rail advocates are continually beating the same drum...and when regular folks don't get it, they're blasted for being ignorant or not understanding "this is how it's done".

 

Reminds me of that guy in Office Space screaming at the 2 Bob's "I'M A PEOPLE PERSON. I DEAL WELL WITH PEOPLE."

 

Look, I support rail and this project. But the fact remains, even when I try to talk to ALL (not most, or some, but all) of my friends about this they all say the same thing "why wouldn't I just drive?" The only remotely successful argument I've made is for my Cleveland friends, getting a head start on tailgating when going to Buckeye games

 

Well said

^I hate politics...

 

Best post on here in a while...

The feeling I keep getting from reading comments away from this site is that 'the people' think they are being presented with an either/or choice.  As if riding the train was being forced upon them.  As if allowing this project to proceed will actually preclude and/or hamper their ability to continue to drive to the other two C's if they so choose (when, in fact, it will improve their ability to do so).  It's almost as if Kasich and his pals have convinced them that rail advocates intend to replace I-71 with a 39 mph rail line.

 

As for the people suggesting that the debate be re-framed... do you HONESTLY believe that would work?  Do you HONESTLY believe that this issue has not reached the point of no return in politics?  When was the last time an issue encountered a partisan division and then the other side simply said, "well, if you put it like that..."  If mere ignorance were the issue, that would be one thing.  But willful ignorance is an impossible mountain to overcome.

^ The part about "being forced to take the train" demonstrates just how embedded minds are into the auto-only culture... But in contrast, and many here I would think feel the same.... I feel as though I have been forced to be a part of driving and to take part in all the expenses associated with it...as we all really were because it has been the only choice.

Why the disconnect exists is not relevant.  The point is, there is a disconnect and the current method of promotion is not working for the 3-C project.  but instead of taking a different approach, rail advocates are continually beating the same drum...and when regular folks don't get it, they're blasted for being ignorant or not understanding "this is how it's done".

 

Regular folks aren't "getting blasted for being ignorant or not understanding".  Regular folks aren't the problem.  3C is being stopped because one group of elites is telling another group of elites that they are going to stop this project simply out of spite, because they can.

 

Regular folks are generally indifferent to process, unaware and uninterested in the difference between various governmental budgets.  They generally expect that they are electing people with the intention to govern in the best interest of the polity (even if they think that that interest corresponds with their own private interest).

 

Your friends who say, "Why wouldn't I just drive" are being perfectly reasonable.  I don't plan to use 3C to visit Columbus or Cleveland, primarily because I don't have any reason or desire to go there.  But how a single person would assess their transportation choices for a particular trip doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the state should engage in this project.  Should a company not offer a product simply because a shareholder doesn't plan on using it?

 

It is the pro-car forces that keep trying to make this a competition. I'd say that KJP and to a sizable extent most of the supporters on here start w/ passenger rail as a stand alone good that benefits all (usually focusing first on those who don't access or the ability to drive). Passenger rail is the oldest form of non-animal powered ground transit on earth. I'm not sure why rail supporters have to reinvent the wheel to have the better part of the argument.

 

Exactly.  This idea that everyone would be on board if only the messaging was better is a dead-end for 3C advocates.  One party is trying to kill the project because they can.  They are ignoring objective evidence, or even the very idea of objectivity, simply because they have the power to do so.  If the Ohio Republican Party let this go through, it would not effect their election prospects for good or for ill.  If you consistently defend this project you invariably impart the message that it needs to be defended and therefore something must be fishy about it.  That's why you need to say, "This money is going to go to another state if we don't use it,"; "The cost to operate this passenger rail is less than the cost to repave X miles of highway,"; "Freight does X amount of business in Ohio and employees X number of people.  This would increase that to Y and Y."; "The Governor and so and so are lying to you about this project."

I don't plan to use 3C to visit Columbus or Cleveland, primarily because I don't have any reason or desire to go there.

 

Unfortunately, this line of thought is rampant in our State and is surely one reason the 3-C is not high on many people's list.  I, for one, was hoping that the 3-C would provide the opportunity to educate our population that, wherever you live, the other two C's are desirable places to visit and would offer a relatively hassle free way to take a weekend, or even merely a day visit.

^ The reason many ask why they would "not just drive" is because they have grown up on one model only...and that is...the auto-dependent landscape. Few know no other way or scene....that simple. As for selling it, all egos need to be set aside and those who oppose need to forget what they think they know about rail and/or this project and learn. This would be helped if they had better information distributed to them via mainstream boob media, but they don't.

 

The media is what makes persuasion through logic and reason impossible. The facts are only there for those who seek them, and most people simply rely on their local paper to provide the facts for them. If the Enquirer, Dispatch, or Plain Dealer were my only source for information about 3C, I'd probably be against it, too!!!

 

The fault does not lie with 3C advocates or All Aboard Ohio, or their message. The fault lies squarely with the papers for framing the issue in a biased manner, time and time again.

Amen! You want the truth... you need to seek it out. "fair and balanced" does not mean factual and accurate.

Unfortunately, this line of thought is rampant in our State and is surely one reason the 3-C is not high on many people's list. I, for one, was hoping that the 3-C would provide the opportunity to educate our population that, wherever you live, the other two C's are desirable places to visit and would offer a relatively hassle free way to take a weekend, or even merely a day visit.

 

The point is that it is worthwhile to pursue under the circumstances of federal expenditure, other transpo expenditure choices, state competitiveness, etc.  One's personal travel plans aren't particularly relevant when it comes to the state building roads, either.

 

I find it highly unlikely that one is going to convince someone to visit Cleveland from Cincy or vice versa simply because you can take a train to do it.  That's a subjective reason.  The virtue of this plan is its efficiency vis-a-vis a host of objective factors.  If you're going to sell something, at least emphasize the products strengths and the corresponding virtues in the individual you are selling to (e.g.- "You like saving money, right?" not "This is a great reason to catch a Cavs game!")

I find it highly unlikely that one is going to convince someone to visit Cleveland from Cincy or vice versa simply because you can take a train to do it. 

 

On the contrary, my wife would have went with my son to Cincy last weekend if the train were an option.  She loves to visit her best friend who moved there from NJ a few years back, but riding with my son and without me can be a difficult 5 hours.  Plus, she is not that familiar with the area.  Riding a train and getting picked up at the station, on the other hand, would have been a breeze for her and my son, who loves everything about trains, would have got a real kick out of it.

 

Perhaps you meant to say, "I find it highly unlikely that I am going to visit Cleveland from Cincy simply because I can take a train to do it."  And I'm sure there are many, many in your camp on that one.  But there are others, in different circumstances, who view it through a different lens and find different rationale for its use.

I am interested in your feedback. What messages are we missing in our principal outreach pieces.....

 

3C Talking Points for policymakers

http://freepdfhosting.com/53d8461179.pdf

 

3C Talking Points for travelers

http://freepdfhosting.com/38fe6d024a.pdf

 

Corridor Comparisons

http://freepdfhosting.com/4808eafeb0.pdf

 

3C presentation (short)

http://freepdfhosting.com/e8a4a1ddb0.pdf

 

3C presentation (long)

http://freepdfhosting.com/4808eafeb0.pdf

 

Many of you urbanists might also like this one:

 

Getting on board - what train stations say about their cities

http://freepdfhosting.com/e8a4a1ddb0.pdf

 

That ought to keep ya busy!!!

^I am with Hts121 on this.

Driving to Cleveland= a waste of my day, riding a train to Cleveland=me getting some work done on the trip, recovering from a hangover, or reading...

Indeed, I currently have little desire to visit Columbus or Cleveland because I hate driving I-71 (or any interstate highway for much length).  I might consider it as a weekend trip if I could do it by train though.  There's a lot of people out there who hate driving for long, but also don't like flying or just can't afford it.  Trains are perfect for those medium-distance trips that are painful drives but rather short flights. 

 

This is an argument to refute the people who say "who'd take a train from NYC to LA?"  The answer is nobody, that's exactly the kind of distance planes are right for.  You also wouldn't likely take the train from Dayton to Springfield, but those middle distances of 100-500 miles or so is exactly where trains are perfect.

Ohio is so ass-backwards. You would NEVER be in an east coast state's urban development message board having to explain to people why you would chose to take a d@mn train.

FloridaBound21, I could really relate to your post. Thanks for sharing.

Perhaps you meant to say, "I find it highly unlikely that I am going to visit Cleveland from Cincy simply because I can take a train to do it."  And I'm sure there are many, many in your camp on that one.  But there are others, in different circumstances, who view it through a different lens and find different rationale for its use.

 

No, I meant to say exactly what I said.  Re-read what went down:

 

Your friends who say, "Why wouldn't I just drive" are being perfectly reasonable.  I don't plan to use 3C to visit Columbus or Cleveland, primarily because I don't have any reason or desire to go there.  But how a single person would assess their transportation choices for a particular trip doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the state should engage in this project.  Should a company not offer a product simply because a shareholder doesn't plan on using it?

 

I find it highly unlikely that one is going to convince someone to visit Cleveland from Cincy or vice versa simply because you can take a train to do it. 

 

On the contrary, my wife would have went with my son to Cincy last weekend if the train were an option.  She loves to visit her best friend who moved there from NJ a few years back, but riding with my son and without me can be a difficult 5 hours. Plus, she is not that familiar with the area.  Riding a train and getting picked up at the station, on the other hand, would have been a breeze for her and my son, who loves everything about trains, would have got a real kick out of it.

 

You have a reason to travel from Cleveland/Columbus to Cincy.  The train would make that easier for you.  I don't have anybody to visit in Cleveland/Columbus.  The train would not make my trip easier, since I'm not being stopped from making the trip due to the costs associated with travel, I'm not making the trip because I don't want to go there.

 

I don't really care why someone would want to make take the train.  Maybe they just like riding in trains.  The point, once again, is that a project has utility beyond and outside of one person's personal reason for potential using it.  I think it is worthwhile even though I don't see myself using it (though I may, I don't know).  But I don't travel to Columbus or Cleveland because I don't have any reason to go there.  Nevertheless that's a strange prism to view the utility of massive state infrastructure projects.

So you didn't mean: "I find it highly unlikely that one is going to convince someone to visit Cleveland from Cincy or vice versa simply because you can take a train to do it"?

 

Hopefully after reading my post and the responses of others that it is not as 'unlikely' as you might think.  And I really hope that, one day, more people in the 3 C's realize that there is more to do in our 3 great cities than visit relatives/friends.

 

 

 

I don't really care why someone would want to make take the train.  Maybe they just like riding in trains.  The point, once again, is that a project has utility beyond and outside of one person's personal reason for potential using it.  I think it is worthwhile even though I don't see myself using it (though I may, I don't know).  But I don't travel to Columbus or Cleveland because I don't have any reason to go there.  Nevertheless that's a strange prism to view the utility of massive state infrastructure projects.

 

I see where you're coming from, and I think you're accurately describing why many people object to the train ("I don't go to [insert other 3C city here] anyway, so why would I want this train?.")  Of course, these people don't apply this logic to other massive infrastructure projects, like widening I-71 from Cleveland to Columbus, or rebuilding the I-70/I-71 interchange in downtown Columbus.  I'm sure many of the people using this reasoning to oppose the train have never used and never will use this interchange either.

 

I think what it boils down to is that the Republican machine has ingrained "TRAINS = SOCIALISM" into peoples' minds.

Why the disconnect exists is not relevant.  The point is, there is a disconnect and the current method of promotion is not working for the 3-C project.  but instead of taking a different approach, rail advocates are continually beating the same drum...and when regular folks don't get it, they're blasted for being ignorant or not understanding "this is how it's done".

 

Regular folks aren't "getting blasted for being ignorant or not understanding". 

 

Yes, actually they are.  Read the previous page in this thread. 

 

Regular folks are generally indifferent to process, unaware and uninterested in the difference between various governmental budgets.  They generally expect that they are electing people with the intention to govern in the best interest of the polity (even if they think that that interest corresponds with their own private interest).

 

Kasich can refuse refuse funding because most people are indifferent.  If a vast majority were behind the project, he couldn't refuse the funds that easily without making a major political error.  But when trying to drum up support to influence Kasich to accept the funds and using the current reasons, you're not getting anywhere.  So why not try a different approach?

 

This is the point brutus_buckeye was making before he was told his line of thought was laughable.

So why not try a different approach?

 

 

I agree a different approach should be sought -- but not so much in the marketing/education of the project. Rather, I think it should be in creating a Public Private Partnership which Republicans seem to prefer.

I've suggested a different approach and the only one I see as having even the most remote success.  Progressives need to do a 180 and start an anti-rail campaign.  Long-shot, yes.  But it plays right into the current reactionary state of American politics.  Cost implications will matter no more.  Budget concerns will evaporate.  Problem solved.

Regular folks aren't "getting blasted for being ignorant or not understanding". 

 

Yes, actually they are.  Read the previous page in this thread. 

 

I agree, they are.  And for good reason.  They're letting themselves be brainwashed on this issue by the Republican machine.  These "regular people" need to wake up and think for themselves.

These "regular people" need to wake up and think for themselves.

 

If only it were that simple:  How Facts Backfire

Regular folks aren't "getting blasted for being ignorant or not understanding". 

 

Yes, actually they are.  Read the previous page in this thread. 

 

I agree, they are.  And for good reason.  They're letting themselves be brainwashed on this issue by the Republican machine.  These "regular people" need to wake up and think for themselves.

 

Let me know how the "wake up and think for yourself" approach works out for you when trying to convert someone against this project (or indifferent) into a supporter.