it will average 39mph, AT FIRST, then once improvements are made, will speed up. If he is ignorant of this, then I we have a lot more to worry about than just not getting a rail line.

 

I think comprehension of such a basic principle is a good litmus test for anyone's ability to be a leader.

it will average 39mph, AT FIRST, then once improvements are made, will speed up. If he is ignorant of this, then I we have a lot more to worry about than just not getting a rail line.

I think comprehension of such a basic principle is a good litmus test for anyone's ability to be a leader.

 

It's my impression that he's approaching the issue with the attitude that "any increased spending" = "bad". Normally I'd be fine with that, but I'd much rather see this rail system get off the ground than sink another dollar into the interstate highway system. It's hypocrisy.

Yep, we're clearly spending too much on rail. Granted, this is federal funding. Showing a similar chart for state transportation funding would be pointless because the shaded area for rail would be too small to be visible...

 

^ That chart is shocking.

 

I propose we lay rail on interstate highway right-of-ways. Heck, when we run out of oil, nobody going to use them anyway.

What is most disturbing about the chart posted by KJP is that the Blue and Yellow portions have moved steadily upward over the long-term.  One could attribute this to inflation but the Railroad numbers are essentially static!

 

Your Ohio Republicans keep citing the cost of maintaing a rail system down the road as to why they don't want take the Federal money.  If Washington insisted that Ohio build a new freeway between points A, B and C where one currently doesn't exist, would they turn the money down?  After all, they'd have to maintain it!

Here is something I posted on another forum where folks were discussing the I-70/71 interchange vs 3C passenger rail....

 

The $1.7 billion for I-70/71 equates with the $400 million for 3C. Those are one-time capital construction costs. The year-to-year operating and maintenance costs are what you're talking about with the $17 million for 3C. The issue that no one is asking is what is the year-to-year operating and maintenance costs for highway projects like I-70/71. What will it cost to operate and maintain this larger highway infrastructure? How will it be paid for? Do we have the money to pay for it?

 

The answer clearly is "NO -- we do not have the money to pay for the added operating and maintenance cost." The answer is in ODOT's 2010-11 Business Plan....

 

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

 

Please turn to page 37 at the above link. Look at the line "Total Fix it First Programs" and note that highway operating and maintenance costs will rise from $1.4 billion this year to $2.17 billion in 2017. That isn't just an increase of $730 million over FY2010. It's a cumulative increase each year totaling $3.321 billion over all years between now and 2017. So while phony fiscal conservatives complain about the $17 million for 3C trains, they turn a blind eye to $3.321 billion that ODOT does not have and does not know where it come from. But yet they are pressing ahead with major highway expansion projects statewide, including I-70/71, that will create this enormous burden on Ohio taxpayers.

 

When fiscal conservatives are more worried about $17 million than they are about $3.3 billion, then this isn't about conservatism. It's about campaign contributions and other kinds of puppet strings being pulled by Ohio's highway builders, petroleum marketers, truckers and other protectors of the status quo.

 

If you think that's bad, KJP, wait til you check out the cherry-picked info they use to invent a perceived need for split reconstruction. Citizens of Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland should all be enraged at a plan that is going to end up in the pockets of a happy few. I've brought this to light to Columbus residents who really don't care about this, but do care about higher parking rates and got the city to halt that plan due to public pressure. It's up to the other Cs and Ohio residents to get this out into the open and put pressure on ODOT and Columbus City Council.

 

I'm pretty sure $1.7 billion would be better used to increase the speed of the 3C rail corridor, rather than thrown at a problem that has already solved itself. An ODOT official admitted at the last city council meeting that their high number of overcapacity vehicles on the split was taken when they closed I-670 and that traffic (75,000-118,000 along different stretches bordering Downtown) overburdened the capacity of 125,000 vehicles a day that the split was originally built for. When you take either recent ODOT figure of 175,000 or 167,000 and take this into consideration, the real number of average daily traffic is much lower. According to their 2006 data, when I-670 traffic was not being routed onto the split, it saw around 133,000-144,000 annual average daily traffic (that includes weekends which is less accurate for practical purposes than ADT which counts weekdays only when it's most heavily used) and keep in mind this is before the severe decline in driving in recent years due to the recession which threatened highway funding and continues to do so.

 

http://columbus-ite.com/2010/07/22/groundbreaking-news-odot-may-have-lied-to-city-council-to-make-case-for-split-reconstruction/

 

 

I just don't understand why the Republicans picked this issue to have a hard on about.  What is wrong with getting $400 million in federal dollars to impove a frieght rail corridor.  Ralph Perk would have been all over this touting how he ad brought home the bacon. 

^ This is the libertarian influence coming through to try to curb runaway spending. That they had to pick on this favorite project of ours is unfortunate and seems unjustifiable in light of the truckload of money we're about to dump into the worthless and wasteful interstate highway system. Unfortunately, the highway lobby is one of the most powerful in the country, and by contrast, the national rail system has relatively few powerful supporters.

^ This is the libertarian influence coming through to try to curb runaway spending. That they had to pick on this favorite project of ours is unfortunate and seems unjustifiable in light of the truckload of money we're about to dump into the worthless and wasteful interstate highway system. Unfortunately, the highway lobby is one of the most powerful in the country, and by contrast, the national rail system has relatively few powerful supporters.

 

It's too late for that now.  That train has already, er, ah, left the station!  HA HA

Looks like Kasich has a lot of momentum at the moment, at least according to the latest Reuters Poll.

 

48%-39%

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67957M20100810

Somebody has got to get him turned arround about this train thing.  Maybe after the election there can be some face saving change that will allow him to embrace it and take all that government $?

Any chances that this project will be off the ground by inauguration time? I don't see a new governor nixing a project that's already had more than a couple million sunk toward development.

No. The final engineering work, which probably won't begin until the fall, will take 15-18 months before the controlling board is asked to make a decision. Some pieces of the funding could be broken out for individual projects in the meantime, but that's just my speculation.

Somebody has got to get him turned arround about this train thing. Maybe after the election there can be some face saving change that will allow him to embrace it and take all that government $?

 

He's a lost cause.  Kasich has been anti-passenger rail since his days in Congress.

 

Our energies would be better spent on electing members of the Ohio House & Senate who favor passenger & freight rail development.  The biggest hurdle for the 3C will not be who sits in the Governor's chair, but who sits on the State Controlling Board.

How much power does the governor actually have over 3C?

How much power does the governor actually have over 3C?

 

A great deal, as 3C is an intrastate project.

How much power does the governor actually have over 3C?

 

A great deal, as 3C is an intrastate project.

Specifically.  The controlling board has some sway and the legislature has some sway, right?  I'm sure the governor has some say in it but if it's coming from the Feds and the people really want it, I doubt Kasich would kill it on his own.

Drat. It really irks me how glacially slow these engineering and feasibility studies move. :/ A hundred years ago, we used to build entire rail lines in 6 months! Well, I guess it's back to the letter-writing campaign. If they're going to kill rail, they had better kill the highway funding too. Hypocrisy.

Kasich may kill it if ODOT becomes less desirous of becoming a multi-modal department, which it likely would if Kasich is elected. The reason is that the highway lobby is very tied into Kasich and the highway lobby wants to stop all discussion of ODOT becoming more multi-modal. Their fear isn't that 3C will fail. Rather, they are afraid of it succeeding as it could trigger a tectonic cultural shift as more regions of the state make "me too!" demands for expanding intercity passenger rail linked to expanded local transit and revitalized urban centers.

Kasich may kill it if ODOT becomes less desirous of becoming a multi-modal department, which it likely would if Kasich is elected. The reason is that the highway lobby is very tied into Kasich and the highway lobby wants to stop all discussion of ODOT becoming more multi-modal. Their fear isn't that 3C will fail. Rather, they are afraid of it succeeding as it could trigger a tectonic cultural shift as more regions of the state make "me too!" demands for expanding intercity passenger rail linked to expanded local transit and revitalized urban centers.

I see.  What I don't understand is why the Feds don't handle HSR like they handled the interstate highway system in the 50s.  Make the "interstate commerce clause" argument and ram it through like they've done a million times with much more obtusely related subjects.  Maybe the political will just isn't there? It baffles me since this is the perfect opportunity to implement a real, nationwide HSR system from the top down.

I see.  What I don't understand is why the Feds don't handle HSR like they handled the interstate highway system in the 50s.  Make the "interstate commerce clause" argument and ram it through like they've done a million times with much more obtusely related subjects.  Maybe the political will just isn't there? It baffles me since this is the perfect opportunity to implement a real, nationwide HSR system from the top down.

 

I think it has something to do with the railroad industry's off-color and at times contentious relationship with the federal government that has existed for over 100 years. The FRA and other entities just hate railroads.

Kasich may kill it if ODOT becomes less desirous of becoming a multi-modal department, which it likely would if Kasich is elected. The reason is that the highway lobby is very tied into Kasich and the highway lobby wants to stop all discussion of ODOT becoming more multi-modal. Their fear isn't that 3C will fail. Rather, they are afraid of it succeeding as it could trigger a tectonic cultural shift as more regions of the state make "me too!" demands for expanding intercity passenger rail linked to expanded local transit and revitalized urban centers.

I see. What I don't understand is why the Feds don't handle HSR like they handled the interstate highway system in the 50s. Make the "interstate commerce clause" argument and ram it through like they've done a million times with much more obtusely related subjects. Maybe the political will just isn't there? It baffles me since this is the perfect opportunity to implement a real, nationwide HSR system from the top down.

 

What I don't get is why the highway lobby actually believes that.  (Is it possible to lobby a lobby?)  There really aren't that many cities with good public transit systems that don't also have large highway systems.  Manhattan might not have too many highways on the island itself, for example, but the greater NYC metro area is absolutely packed with asphalt (and packed with vehicles on that asphalt).

 

Suppose we could just SimCity (yes, I am using a PC game title as a verb) the 3C corridor into existence.  Would it really take pressure off the roads, long-term?  Or would it rather simply let the region grow beyond the limits of its current monomodal infrastructure, so that ultimately the highways were just as in demand as ever, if not more so, not because the trains were empty but because we simply had more people and more intercity economic activity?

Does the highway lobby include GM?

The FRA and other entities just hate railroads.

 

I wouldn't put it that way.  Railroads pretty much had a free run of it until they abused their position and near monopoly power at the peak of the robber-baron era.  People were angry and the government reacted to that anger.  The problem is, when the railroads started getting competition from highways and aviation, the government didn't adjust the regulatory climate to keep pace until January 1980 when Carter signed the Staggers Act.  Now in some areas of the country captive shippers are feeling squeezed again and they've been squawking to Congress and the STB,  These are the roots of the contentious relationship. 

 

I see.  What I don't understand is why the Feds don't handle HSR like they handled the interstate highway system in the 50s.  Make the "interstate commerce clause" argument and ram it through like they've done a million times with much more obtusely related subjects.  Maybe the political will just isn't there? It baffles me since this is the perfect opportunity to implement a real, nationwide HSR system from the top down.

 

Because so far, the feds have done very little to encourage rail development, USDOT never developed a comprehensive transportation vision for the country like they were supposed to per their enabling legislation in the 60s, and Congress has had little interest in leveling the playing field among transportation modes as far as funding.  They've taken some steps recently with the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act and the stimulus funds, but they haven't put enough money behind it.

Kasich may kill it if ODOT becomes less desirous of becoming a multi-modal department, which it likely would if Kasich is elected. The reason is that the highway lobby is very tied into Kasich and the highway lobby wants to stop all discussion of ODOT becoming more multi-modal. Their fear isn't that 3C will fail. Rather, they are afraid of it succeeding as it could trigger a tectonic cultural shift as more regions of the state make "me too!" demands for expanding intercity passenger rail linked to expanded local transit and revitalized urban centers.

 

I think Governor Strickland should push to hold one of the gubernatorial debates at a rail manufacturing facility... maybe the currently idled Alliance Castings plant in Alliance.  AC makes trucks, knuckles, and couplers for freight cars (except they aren't making anything right now).  A significant part of the 3C project (and the spinoff economic benefits) is  freight.  Put Kasich on the spot about his stance. 

yeah, i think that would be a really good response to the dumb dhl commercial on right now.  Strickland needs to demonstrate what he has done and what the potential of his current moves have on job creation - its pretty obvious he's losing that battle to Kasich smear stuff.  Kasich wont offer any solutions so strickland can squeeze him to suggest his actual solutions, which i suspect are unrealistic, impossible, or nonexistant as they have been already.

Kasich may kill it if ODOT becomes less desirous of becoming a multi-modal department, which it likely would if Kasich is elected. The reason is that the highway lobby is very tied into Kasich and the highway lobby wants to stop all discussion of ODOT becoming more multi-modal. Their fear isn't that 3C will fail. Rather, they are afraid of it succeeding as it could trigger a tectonic cultural shift as more regions of the state make "me too!" demands for expanding intercity passenger rail linked to expanded local transit and revitalized urban centers.

 

I think Governor Strickland should push to hold one of the gubernatorial debates at a rail manufacturing facility... maybe the currently idled Alliance Castings plant in Alliance. AC makes trucks, knuckles, and couplers for freight cars (except they aren't making anything right now). A significant part of the 3C project (and the spinoff economic benefits) is freight. Put Kasich on the spot about his stance.

I wish Strickland would do something substantive for Ohio like make sure the government-owned GM plant in Moraine isn't demolished for no good reason.  It might sound nice but Obama showering states with rail money doesn't count as an achievement of Strickland's.

Of course it is an achievement of Strickland's...  Ohio didnt have to apply for the money, and it was clearly a priority of Stricklands to put together a quality proposal.  Ohio could have put together a crappy proposal and got nothing or very little like various other states around country.

Of course it is an achievement of Strickland's... Ohio didnt have to apply for the money, and it was clearly a priority of Stricklands to put together a quality proposal. Ohio could have put together a crappy proposal and got nothing or very little like various other states around country.

If this turns into a campaign issue, no one wins. I believe it already has and not without some good reason. The Ohio Hub was around long before Strickland and had it not been for the Stimulus the Feds wouldn't have given Ohio $400 million to build it.  Not bashing Strickland, just saying that like Al Gore and the Internet, Strickland shouldn't pin his hopes for re-election on an ambiguously popular/unpopular passenger rail project that he didn't create.

I dont disagree that this shouldnt be a campaign issue, but Kasich and the rest of the crew has made it one by flat coming out against passenger rail.  I am not a partisan die hard, i just think that Strickland really has done a lot to help Ohio in more ways than just one project.  We have seen a complete change (for the better) in transportation policy in the last few years and Im excited to see what 4 more years might bring with it.  Top-level policy change is really the key to making substantial impacts; it opens the door for the local entities to get multi-modal projects funded; which otherwise couldn't get funded purely with local dollars.

 

The entire country is moving more toward a multi-modal approach to transportation.  if we go back to auto-centric both in infrastructure investment and private industry, we will continue to lose young people and potential economic growth.

Agreed....the fact that ODOT is moving toward an intermodal policy is a feather in Strickland's cap and one he should publically crow about....with the 3C being part of it.  I would go even a step forward and campaign on the fact that he took a study started under a Republican administration and put it into motion.  Let's see how "John-Boy" Kasich deals with having to criticize something that evolved from his own party.

Oh please. If you really think ODOT has changed under Strickland you're delusional. Make that Delusional. Talk does not = walk. Like I was saying, all you have to do is look at the $1.7 billion, 2-mile split reconstruction for proof aplenty. The split was built for 125,000 vehicles a day. Of course, when it turns out that traffic is near or at that volume and the number of crashes have dropped significantly, just use data from a decade ago to prove your point rather than adjust accordingly.

 

Here you have ODOT's lead spokesperson, Scott Varner, quoted in an interview just over a month ago giving demonstrably false information: maybe he's still living in the late 90s-early 2000s, but we're living in 2010.

 

Scott Varner, Deputy Director and lead spokesperson for ODOT, sat  down to talk with outlook:columbus about the project, and ODOT’s new  mission to “heal scars” left by the interstates in the Columbus  neighborhoods.

 

“The 70/71 corridor carries 175,000 vehicles per day. With an  accident rate 10 times the state average for similar sections of  interstate, contributing to 1200 crashes every year on average,”  explains Scott.

 

Why do I, as someone not even employed at ODOT, know that the 175,000 figure is just tainted beyond belief? That number comes from this 2002 document showing different ADT counts (Average Daily Trafffic=annual average number of daily vehicles during a weekday) on different sections of the split. So as you can see, he took the highest number and applied it to the entire stretch, rather than qualify his statement. That and it's from 2002. He also just so happened to forget that for a whole nine months in 2002 a large chunk of I-670 along the northern stretch of Downtown was closed and all that traffic rerouted onto the split. The 175,000 figure includes not just normal I-70/71 traffic, but nearly a year of being overburdened with several thousands of vehicles every day from I-670 which would not otherwise be using it.  That and it's 2010 and we've seen a huge drop in the number of drivers on our highways (thank you recession).

 

As for the 1200 crashes a year or approx. 3 crashes per day: why what's this? It's 800 crashes a year you say? Down to 2 crashes a day? A 33% drop in crashes and we didn't even have to spend a dime? Why are going to spend $1.7 billion again? I dunno, call Scott Varner find out.

Wasn't saying that ODOT had completed the transition to a true intermodal agency, but it got a good start under the current administration and that's more than has happened under any prior administration.

 

Though I don't disagree with you on the 70-71 Split ( a totally unnecessary project), you single out the one project as evidence that no change has taken place at ODOT.  You forget that ODOT has pursued far more funding through the federal stimulus act (ARRA) that has been directed toward mass transit, bike trails, pedestrian improvements and passenger rail.

 

 

Columbusite is right Strickland is all talk.  ODOT is proof.

Look at the projects that have been funded for CONSTRUCTION in the last few years  versus those that were funded prior to that (including the 3C, barring the controlling board stuff).  There have been huge changes and things are actually getting done.  This can only come from the leadership of the Governor and ODOT director.  Put Kasich in there and there is zero chance of state supported passenger rail, local transit, bike/ped facilities, and complete streets.  All funding will be directed to highway expansion once again and the local municipalities will have less of a chance of getting multi-modal projects off the ground.

 

 

 

Columbusite is right Strickland is all talk. ODOT is proof.

 

ODOT changed the scoring mechanism for funding to make it more multi modal.  The Cincinnati Streetcar had the highest score of any project in the 2010 TRAC funding round and received $15 million with the chance for more in 2011.

Columbusite is right Strickland is all talk. ODOT is proof.

 

Sorry, but you are not aware of the many multi-modal initiatives ODOT has undertaken. Take some time to read about them rather than shooting from the hip.

One thing is for certain, if we allow Kasich to be elected Governor...it is "game over" on any further strides toward intermodalism at ODOT. 

It's certainly over for 3C+D.  Kasich has pretty much made it a campaign promise to kill the plan.

 

 

One thing is for certain, if we allow Kasich to be elected Governor...it is "game over" on any further strides toward intermodalism at ODOT. 

 

Democrats generally don't share the same enthusiasm during midterm elections as republicans(at least that's the historical trend). Then you factor in that nobody likes the incumbents at the moment.  Who knows though....There's a lot of time between now and November.  But this one will be a battle til the end

A good reason why I will dust off my campaign slogan aimed at every candidate ... Dem or GOP....

 

"Want my vote?  Get me a train."

Article published August 14, 2010

Ohio needs passenger rail

Letter to the Toledo Blade

 

As a senior citizen, voter, taxpayer, and nondriver, I depend on public transit, family, and friends. I am appalled when a candidate for governor issues a “no way” statement about passenger trains in Ohio (“Kasich: No to train plan; GOP hopeful calls $400M idea ‘white elephant,'” Aug. 5).

 

Republican gubernatorial candidate John Kasich asked: “Who would ride the train?” The corridor that includes Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati is home to millions of people, including students, nondrivers, seniors, one-vehicle households, and — one hopes — some Ohio government officials who frequently travel to Columbus.

 

Full letter to the editor at: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100814/OPINION03/100819826

Part of a questionaire sent to all of the gubernatorial candidates by the Columbus Dispatch...

 

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/08/15/copy/answers.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

 

13. Questions have been raised about the cost and efficacy of passenger rail service connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Dayton. Are you committed to going forward with passenger rail, and why?

 

KASICH: A 39-mph train that costs $400 million dollars and which will lose $17 million in perpetuity is one of the silliest ideas I have ever heard. I will kill it if elected governor and prioritize highway and freight rail projects that will benefit the entire state.

 

MATESZ: This is a waste of taxpayer dollars and should not be done. It is very clear that the transportation of choice around the state is the automobile and passenger rail cannot compete with the auto in price, convenience, speed, and practicality. The publicly funded passenger rail idea is a money-loser waiting to happen. The market should determine what modes of transportation people use, not government.

 

SPISAK: I believe Ohio needs to become more active in promoting rail and mass transit in the 21st century. However, I believe baby steps need to be taken in building high-speed rail in the sense that small projects should first be tried, say a Cleveland-Youngstown-Pittsburgh model to see if such larger scale plans are feasible. The Republicans do have some credible concerns regarding the 3-C project in terms of what effect it may have on future Ohio state budgets.

 

STRICKLAND: Because passenger train service will help Ohio create manufacturing, retail, and construction jobs, I am committed to restoring 79 mile per hour train service connecting the cities and communities along the 3C&D corridor. In addition to creating jobs, this service will help Ohio retain college graduates, the next generation of workers, innovators, and job creators.

 

For less than the cost of a major bridge, we can bring an economic engine to four of Ohio's largest cities and communities in between. Ohio successfully competed against dozens of other states who wanted these funds to create jobs in their states. These funds were allocated to Ohio to initiate the 3C&D passenger train service. If Ohio rejects these funds, Michigan or some other state will take Ohio's money and create jobs in their state.

 

People have compared passenger rail service to the start of the federal highway system. President Eisenhower's vision of building highways across the nation was not met with unanimous support. But he understood that a network of roads across the country would be good for people, employment, and commerce. The federal highway system took decades to build and as it was built, communities and businesses grew up around it and with it. America gained access to goods and services and jobs.

 

Passenger rail service across America will be much the same.  It will, just like the federal highway system, be a continuous engine for economic development.

 

"The market should determine what modes of transportation people use, not government."  Does this guy know anything about government?  He makes it sound like government plays no part in transportation...

It just galls me when Republicans willfully ignore external economies.  Certainly they must know better. 

Government supported trains bad, government supported roads good.  The libertarian doesn't even know what it means to be libertarian.  I'd like to ask both him and Kasich to name one highway in the state that has turned a profit. 

Is it really that hard for highway construction firms to learn how to do rail infrastructre and grab some of that Federal $$?

Is it really that hard for highway construction firms to learn how to do rail infrastructre and grab some of that Federal $$?

 

That's my first thought too, but I'm guessing that the hyper-specialization we see in many fields today means it's probably not so simple.  Take the home building industry for example, something I'm pretty familiar with.  There's a lot more subcontractors than you may think.  For instance, there's the excavators, the foundation subs, the rough carpenters, the masons, the roofers, the insulators, the electricians, the plumbers, the HVAC subs, the the drywall hangers, the drywall finishers, the finish carpenters, the painters, the floor finishers, the carpet installers, the driveway pavers, and the landscapers.  That's a very simple take on it too.  Yes, the plumbing and HVAC might be the same company, and sometimes the framers might be from the same company as the finish carpenters, but you could also get into audio/visual subs, lightning protection, home automation, security, special HVAC like geothermal that requires separate drilling subcontractors, etc., etc., etc. 

 

As for the road building types, I fear we'd see the same sort of thing.  I'm not familiar with the exact breakdown, but I imagine you'd have one crew that does nothing but scrape up the old pavement, one for heavy earth moving, one that does base preparation, one for drainage, one that does paving (and the asphalt people are different from the concrete people), one for jersey barriers (again, the metal versus concrete crews might be different), separate bridge crews for the piers and the steel, separate line painters, electricians, sign and gantry installers, and who knows what else.  They could all be part of just two or three companies, but they'd still likely be separate crews with vastly different knowledge bases.  So while on the surface it may not seem all that much different than building a railroad line, only a few of those crews are really transferable.  Even then, because of different loading standards, allowable grades, standards of fit and finish, etc., those crews would still need a lot of retraining.  Of course the road builders would just assume build more roads than try to retool their operations.  The same goes for trying to repurpose automobile factories to train building.  They're both heavy machinery, assembly line type operations, but the scale and logistics end up making the change rather more difficult to swallow. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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