Yes. That was where you backpedaled.

 

I explained what I meant by that statement. I think you interpreted it wrong prior to reading the rest of the post.

 

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

 

The proposed stop locations, the speed, destinations served, etc. Honestly, I’d rather see the $400 million spent on improving already existing Amtrak service than a 3-C corridor. If we could improve service and quality on already existing routes, that could free up some minds and allow for a proper amount of money to be spent to build a rail system Ohio could be proud of. I’m not a naysayer, 3-C could be semi successful like other similar projects elsewhere, but why settle for that?

I think people would also rather see a line that served an out of Ohio destination spot like Chicago, New York, DC. For Cincinnatians, a line to Cleveland isn't as exciting as say a 100mph line to New York via Cleveland.

 

 

Cleveland and Cincy are already connected to Chicago, New York, DC, etc:

 

^^It's only settling for "that" if we plan to stop with "that"... which we don't.  It is a first and necessary step to acheiving the goal of a "rail system Ohio could be proud of"

 

For Cincinnatians, a line to Cleveland isn't as exciting as say a 100mph line to New York via Cleveland.

 

You could do that if the 3-C was built.  You would just have to switch trains in Cleveland.  And, hopefully, one day both of those trains will run at 100mph+

 

However, I agree with the earlier comment that too much focus is on Cleveland to Cincy... or Cincy to Cleveland.  Honestly, I think ridership would be double, perhaps triple for Cleveland to Columbus compared to Cleveland to Cincy.  Just speculation, but I could definitely see it playing out that way.

 

  "Why does anybody drive when driving is slower than flying?"

 

    Because you can only fly to airports. The point to point trip can easily take longer by airline, especially considering parking, security, waiting, etc. Airlines are really only competive with automobiles for long distance trips.

has to do with spending a large amount of money (and yes, $400 million is a LARGE amount no matter what you are going to randomly compare it to) on a project that some dont feel confident about

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Youre misconstruing my point.  My concern is that money isnt enough, in other words we will end up with a sub-par product (or as Niko pointed out, go way over budget), and that will kill any hope we have of ever getting true high speed rail. It has nothing to do with whether the $400 million for rail is a waste (it isnt, in my opinion).  If we build a half-hearted attempt, it may turn off even more people in the end.  If people pay to take the train across the state once or even a few times, have a bad experience or two, what are the chances they will support more rail in the future?

 

What leads you to believe that this is a half-hearted plan?  $400-million can get 3C service started.... and that's the pertinent point.... this is a START_UP.... not the be and end all of passenger rail development in Ohio.

 

In fact, the State of Ohio has started the preliminary environmental work and feasability study on four rail corridors for 110-MPH passenger rail service.  Those 4 corridors include ramping up speed on the 3C from 79-MPH to 110-MPH. So let's not all be wringing our hands over whether $400-million is enough.  It's far better that the alternative offered by the opponents.

When I drive cross country, I only plan on 55mph to 58mph considering the food, fuel and pit stops.

What is lost on many critics is the context in which 3C would be developed -- not only the context of much larger highway subsidies but also the context of how other services started around the U.S.

 

So here's a pretty straightforward chart to show where 3C would rank amongst other state-supported intercity passenger rail corridors started in the past 30 years and how they're performing today ridership-wise....

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/7e28c8a73e.pdf

 

You are welcome to print and share this with others.

 

I think the oppositions problems are...

 

1. Democrats are pushing it

2. Spending, which is an even hotter than normal political talking point right now

...edit...

Makes me sick.  They politicize f-ing everything.  After the Voino-Taft period with scant accomplishments for the public, they want to ruin a gain by governor Strickland and President Obama.  They have launched a propaganda campaign to make rail backers become rail opponents.

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

 

Conceding, for a moment, your point that $400 million is a LARGE amount ... . Then the HUMONGOUSLY GARGANTUAN amount of $1.7 billion for the I-70/71 split in Columbus, which a lot of people don't feel confindent about, should be getting a whole lot more scrutiny than 3-C. But it's not.

The point to point trip can easily take longer by airline, especially considering parking, security, waiting, etc. Airlines are really only competive with automobiles for long distance trips.

 

Many people (especially businesspeople) fly on trips which would be shorter (or at least similar) to drive.  The difference is that they can get work done at the airport while waiting and on the plane.  And they also don't have to worry about actually doing the driving.  My point is that there is more to a decision on which mode of travel to take than simply which is the fastest.

Point: Columbus needs passenger rail service. Question: what would be the best way to connect to the system w/out clearly dissing either Cleveland, Dayton, or Cincinnati (all of which feed people into and out of the Columbus area), create rail service that connects Columbus to Cleveland, Cincinnati and Dayton. Does it connect Cleveland to Cincinnati, yes, but more importantly it provides Columbus w/ access to the broader system. Parochially, Cincinnati and Cleveland (and Toledo) may all say, screw Columbus instead invest in our passenger rail that is already operating to out of state destinations, well Columbus is where the growth is and where a ton a college students are, who may well use it in rather large numbers.

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

 

Conceding, for a moment, your point that $400 million is a LARGE amount ... . Then the HUMONGOUSLY GARGANTUAN amount of $1.7 billion for the I-70/71 split in Columbus, which a lot of people don't feel confindent about, should be getting a whole lot more scrutiny than 3-C. But it's not.

 

I’m not going to argue against that, I think ODOT should spend more money on rail and less on highways.  I’ll point out the dozens of ways highway designs are inefficient and waste money and real estate in the proper thread.  I can’t stand the fact that the Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati is getting 10 times what the 3-C is getting.  But, it is a solid deal.  What I’m saying is $400 million is a lot to spend on a project if it becomes a failure.  If anything, ODOT should be spending much more on 3-C at the onset; for instance if cost $1 billion but was a plan I had more faith in, I’d be supportive.  Maybe I haven’t been making myself clear.  I support rail, I think the state and feds should spend more on new rail infrastructure and service (and less on new roads), I just don’t like the particulars of 3-C. 

^But the $400 mill is not ODOT's money, it's the Fed's money, and if we don't use it on the 3-C, it will just go to another State.  By turning it down and returning it to the general pool, my tax burden would not be eased at all.... I would still be paying for that money so that other states can move on into the 21st Century and we get left behind.

 

Here's a question I have:  How exactly can Kasich, if elected, "kill" the 3-C project?  Would it be solely through his veto power?  Or would his power of appointment come into play?

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

 

Conceding, for a moment, your point that $400 million is a LARGE amount ... . Then the HUMONGOUSLY GARGANTUAN amount of $1.7 billion for the I-70/71 split in Columbus, which a lot of people don't feel confindent about, should be getting a whole lot more scrutiny than 3-C. But it's not.

 

I’m not going to argue against that, I think ODOT should spend more money on rail and less on highways. I’ll point out the dozens of ways highway designs are inefficient and waste money and real estate in the proper thread. I can’t stand the fact that the Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati is getting 10 times what the 3-C is getting. But, it is a solid deal. What I’m saying is $400 million is a lot to spend on a project if it becomes a failure. If anything, ODOT should be spending much more on 3-C at the onset; for instance if cost $1 billion but was a plan I had more faith in, I’d be supportive. Maybe I haven’t been making myself clear. I support rail, I think the state and feds should spend more on new rail infrastructure and service (and less on new roads), I just don’t like the particulars of 3-C.

 

How do we know the new Brent Spence is a "solid deal?" No Benefit/Cost study has ever been done on it. In fact, no one has ever asked for such a study to be done. Yet Ohio and Kentucky and the Feds have already invested many millions in the project.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of replacing the Brent Spence. Ten years ago, I wrote the first article that ever appeared anywhere calling for a new Brent Spence. Today I sit on the architectual committee for the new Brent Spence.

 

But we tend to think that just because a project has all the politicians behind it, because it's something a lot of people use, it's a winner when, in fact, we would have been better off if some "solid deal" projects had never been built.

^But the $400 mill is not ODOT's money, it's the Fed's money, and if we don't use it on the 3-C, it will just go to another State. By turning it down and returning it to the general pool, my tax burden would not be eased at all.... I would still be paying for that money so that other states can move on into the 21st Century and we get left behind.

 

I've tried to explain that to him multiple times, but he just doesn't get it.  He'd rather continue the fear tactic of throwing around the scary $400 million number even though it's meaningless for this discussion.

^But the $400 mill is not ODOT's money, it's the Fed's money, and if we don't use it on the 3-C, it will just go to another State. By turning it down and returning it to the general pool, my tax burden would not be eased at all.... I would still be paying for that money so that other states can move on into the 21st Century and we get left behind.

 

I've tried to explain that to him multiple times, but he just doesn't get it. He'd rather continue the fear tactic of throwing around the scary $400 million number even though it's meaningless for this discussion.

 

Since you guys are continually taking my statements out of context to respond to, I’ll just leave it with this: if ODOT matched the $400 million, I’d probably be more supportive of the project.

 

To make it simple, these are my concerns: 3-C could be an inferior service under the current plans, people will have bad experiences, and that will severely hamper public support for future rail projects (including improving the 3-C).

 

My only statement about the $400 million was that it’s a lot of money to spend if it is on a mistake, but you can keep lumping me into your typical stereotype of anti-rail people if you don’t want to actually read my posts.

We can only go by what you write.  Perhaps you just need to express yourself better.  So, to be clear, what is your position if you are given the choice of: (a) 3-C as proposed; or (b) return the $400 million to the Feds and allow it to help the sunbelt (or wherever else) improve their infrastructure.  Don't qualify your answer, don't side-step it, just say (a) or (b) because those are essentially the two choices we have.

 

I also don't see how you can label this project "inferior" when those forumers who work with this on a daily basis have continually exlained that it is on par with similar projects and start-ups around the country.

^But the $400 mill is not ODOT's money, it's the Fed's money, and if we don't use it on the 3-C, it will just go to another State. By turning it down and returning it to the general pool, my tax burden would not be eased at all.... I would still be paying for that money so that other states can move on into the 21st Century and we get left behind.

 

I've tried to explain that to him multiple times, but he just doesn't get it. He'd rather continue the fear tactic of throwing around the scary $400 million number even though it's meaningless for this discussion.

 

Since you guys are continually taking my statements out of context to respond to, I’ll just leave it with this: if ODOT matched the $400 million, I’d probably be more supportive of the project.

 

To make it simple, these are my concerns: 3-C could be an inferior service under the current plans, people will have bad experiences, and that will severely hamper public support for future rail projects (including improving the 3-C).

 

My only statement about the $400 million was that it’s a lot of money to spend if it is on a mistake, but you can keep lumping me into your typical stereotype of anti-rail people if you don’t want to actually read my posts.

 

The same could, and should be said, about most highway projects.

 

But I do understand what you are saying.  Creating an inferior experience from the outset could be detrimental.  Hopefully the more detailed engineering study that is about to start can answer more of the questions that are out there.  But is we create a service that doesn't meet people's expectations, and (this is important) doesn't have a clear plan for improving performance then there could be a sizable resistance to making those improvements.

Well, whether or not you think it's going to be an "inferior service" the link KJP posted above shows that all the similar projects built in other states have seen increases in ridership even without improvements in speed over time.  There's nothing to suggest that 3-C is in any way inferior to any of these other projects, so why does everyone think it will be? 

No one I talk with says the $400 million will be inadequate, but then maybe I'm just not talking to the right people.

 

I think the "R''s fear that the $25 million for the engineering studies will clear up all the confusion and myths plus produce some pretty good marketing materials to advance the project. Opponents gain followers when the costs of a project are known but the benefits are uncertain. Doing the engineering will confirm the costs and benefits. I suspect some don't want that to happen. They succeed due to a lack of information.

^ What is the status of the engineering study?  Has it even started yet?  When is it expected to be completed?

Here's a question I have:  How exactly can Kasich, if elected, "kill" the 3-C project?  Would it be solely through his veto power?  Or would his power of appointment come into play?

 

If elected governor, Kasich can tell ODOT to cancel some or all contracts relating to the 3C project. But canceling contracts is always difficult.

 

 

I've tried to explain that to him multiple times, but he just doesn't get it.  He'd rather continue the fear tactic of throwing around the scary $400 million number even though it's meaningless for this discussion.

 

Lighten up on Ram23, please. I, for one, value his thoughtful yet critical opinions. We all don't have to be in love with this project as-is. I also have concerns about it (ie: that we may have to build one Cincinnati station [Lunken etc.] and replace with a permanent site [CUT] later on, that this could have only three daily round trips at the start and not four, and that rebuilt equipment is not more highly regarded as an interim step). But this project is like moldable clay that will never harden. If we don't have enough resources at the outset (no one ever does), we can always refine it, expand it and improve it as more resources become available. That's why it's important to move forward with what we have and keep molding this in an ever-more desirable shape.

 

 

^ What is the status of the engineering study?  Has it even started yet?  When is it expected to be completed?

 

The engineering is about to get underway. The contract between ODOT and the consultant had to be approved by the Federal Railroad Administration which is horribly understaffed given the huge increase in duties, funding and projects the FRA is now having to review. Final engineering for a transportation project of this scale typically takes about a year.

 

Kasich will more than likely be elected governor- and the funds allocated to this project will likely go elsewhere (that is unless, and HOPEFULLY, Kasich flip-flops on his campaign promise and "lets" the project happen).  This is REALLY frustrating.

Kasich will more than likely be elected governor- and the funds allocated to this project will likely go elsewhere (that is unless, and HOPEFULLY, Kasich flip-flops on his campaign promise and "lets" the project happen). This is REALLY frustrating.

 

 

For sure the $400 million will go elsewhere, and not within Ohio.  Something here stinks.  I would say more but I fear the Moderator(s). 

Lighten up on Ram23, please. I, for one, value his thoughtful yet critical opinions. We all don't have to be in love with this project as-is.

 

Who said anything about loving the project as is?  There are plenty of things I'd like to see done differently as well.  But I haven't seen any good arguments for turning away the $400 million of federal money.  Is the project that bad that it's better to give the money to another state and let them build the same thing we could have?  Sorry, but I'd rather see my tax money spent in Ohio when we have the chance to.

Who said anything about loving the project as is?

 

No one did. That's one of those absolutist sayings people make to define one end of an extreme.

High-speed rail: U.S. High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program 'past the point of no return,' FRA's Szabo says

by Angela Cotey, Associate editor

Progressive Railroading

 

It's been a year and a half since President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 into law. Since then, benefits have been extended for unemployed workers, tax cuts have been provided for many families and businesses, and dozens of road and bridge construction projects have begun.

 

But it's not as easy to measure how other stimulus-funded programs are faring, such as the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program, which received $8 billion. At the time the stimulus bill was announced, most high-speed rail projects hadn't gotten beyond the initial planning phase — or even the "should we pursue this?" phase. So, much of the HSR work being done now is taking place behind the scenes as states begin environmental and engineering work. And those states that do have shovel-ready projects are just now starting construction — provided they've got federal funds in hand.

 

Full article at: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/pr/article.asp?id=24315&[email protected]

Kasich will more than likely be elected governor- and the funds allocated to this project will likely go elsewhere (that is unless, and HOPEFULLY, Kasich flip-flops on his campaign promise and "lets" the project happen). This is REALLY frustrating.

The construction unions (Operating Engineers) and construction firms are going to have to lean on this thoughtless Kasich to keep him from killing the 3-C project.  3-C means jobs for those workers and companies to build the passenger stations and some of the track improvements.  Even the mayors in the towns where the stations will be built have a stake in this project: short term construction and long term passenger visitation.  I am sure restaurant owners would like to have rail travelers as patrons. 

Well, whether or not you think it's going to be an "inferior service" the link KJP posted above shows that all the similar projects built in other states have seen increases in ridership even without improvements in speed over time. There's nothing to suggest that 3-C is in any way inferior to any of these other projects, so why does everyone think it will be?

 

Clearly you haven't been staring long enough at Obama's birth certificate.

What is Kasich's reasoning behind killing the project. Didn't anyone tell him that the money would have to be returned and that another state would benefit from it putting Ohio behind. And doesn't he know that if we did build it there would be a lot of jobs related to the project? I just dont understand where he is coming from

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

 

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

 

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

 

But the governor and ODOT let the meme about "low speed" get out of hand.  It's their own fault. 

 

What is Kasich's reasoning behind killing the project. Didn't anyone tell him that the money would have to be returned and that another state would benefit from it putting Ohio behind. And doesn't he know that if we did build it there would be a lot of jobs related to the project? I just dont understand where he is coming from

 

If I had to guess (and this is just a WAG) at the reasons Kasich thinks this is a bad idea, even though the veracity is debatable, I'd say:

1) He is highly confident it will go over budget in construction

2) ...it will cost more than $17 million a year to run

3) ...its Fiscal benefit will not exceed cost in the long run.

17 million is like only $1.50 per person per year so like 12 cents a month. Highways cost way more then that

^ My sense is that Kasich and the "R"s opposition to trains is more political. Few Ohioans have any experience with trains. So it's another way to make the Dems look exotic and out-of-touch. And it's happening all across the country, amplified by Obama's push for high-speed rail and streetcar projects. They've become easy targets.

^ My sense is that Kasich and the "R"s opposition to trains is more political. Few Ohioans have any experience with trains. So it's another way to make the Dems look exotic and out-of-touch. And it's happening all across the country, amplified by Obama's push for high-speed rail and streetcar projects. They've become easy targets.

 

Exactly. Here's a blast-from-the-past example....

 

In 1995, as an outgrowth of the Access Ohio statewide transportation plan (in the public hearings for this plan, more Ohioans asked for passenger rail development than highway expansions), the then-new Ohio Rail Development Commission requested state capital budget funding for 3C and CLE-PIT passenger rail, plus Cleveland-Akron-Canton commuter rail. Gov. Voinovich's Chief of Staff Paul Misfud came to the ORDC commissioners meeting and told them they were "in outer space" for seeking passenger rail development. The funding request was withdrawn. In an ironic twist, Misfud was indicted less than two years later for ethics violations and senteced to six months in prison.

 

But the damage was done. This "outer space" plan of regional and intercity rail is supported by 25 other states (including 16 less densely populated than Ohio). While much of rural America is not served by passenger rail, much of urban America is. Increasingly, it is Ohio that is in "transportation outer space."

Outstanding editorial by the ABJ!  :clap:

 

Ride the rail

Critics pose many questions about passenger rail for Ohio. Then, spend the federal money aimed at getting answers

 

Published on Monday, Sep 20, 2010

 

 

John Kasich refers derisively to ''the 39-mile-per-hour high-speed train.'' The Republican candidate for governor did so last week in his debate with Ted Strickland, the Democratic incumbent. He promised that if elected, he would declare ''dead'' the idea of passenger rail from Cleveland to Cincinnati, via Columbus and Dayton. He proposes an alternative use for the $400 million awarded by the federal government to launch the rail project. He would pour the money into roads and bridges.

 

Good luck with that. The U.S. Department of Transportation didn't make the grant because it was looking to burn money. The feds have in mind a much improved national system for passenger rail, and not for next year, or even the next decade. They are looking to 2025 and beyond, rightly viewing passenger rail as a necessary component of a transportation system that seeks fuel-efficiency, less congestion and diminished greenhouse gases.

 

Full Editorial at: http://www.ohio.com/editorial/opinions/103261489.html

I make a point of reading the headlines at the Beacon Journal web site so that they get the web "hits" to show their advertsers.  ABJ is the best.

I agree. I avoid browsing cleveland.com and dispatch.com for that very reason.

Here is what you have been missing at Cleveland.com: Dimora, Dimora, Dimora, Dimora, and Ed Fitzgerald is a loser because of Dimora.  I expect that is what they will be writing up until the November election.

politics =

Akron isn't even part of the proposed line and its hometown paper is supporting it anyway.  Good work by the ABJ!

I know this should go in the "What other states are doing..." thread. But the obvious polar-opposities between Ohio's partisan reaction and Illinois' bipartisan forward action prompt me to post this here. Illinois has spent mostly state funds over the last 10-15 years doing what Ohio may reject doing with mostly federal funds. Now Illinois is taking this next step in a corridor that has just one-third the number of annual travelers that 3C has (per USDOT)....

 

Officials hail high-speed rail project

BY TERRY HILLIG 618-659-2075 | Posted: Friday, September 17, 2010 5:21 pm

 

ALTON - Gov. Pat Quinn and other state and local officials gathered in Alton Friday to celebrate the start of the first of several projects that will increase the speed of passenger rail service between St. Louis and Chicago.

 

Quinn said the project would bolster economic recovery, create jobs. promote economic development and help make Illinois the high-speed rail hub of the Midwest.

 

The initial $98 million project will upgrade 90 miles of Union Pacific track between Alton and Lincoln, Ill. Officials said it was the first of many high-speed rail improvements around the country that are being funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Illinois got $1.1 billion of Recovery Act funding for St. Louis-Chicago upgrades that will allow speeds of up to 110 mph and cut travel time between the two cities to less than four hours.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_6f7667a4-c2ab-11df-b34d-0017a4a78c22.html

^^Also, Akron isn't really on any realistic statewide plan for a rail line for the next 10 years.  The issue is now a political football using the traditional break of northern Democrats vs southern Republicans of Cinci.  I feel it is always distrusted that if the Democrats are for something then it is a kneeJERK reaction of the Kasich and friends to be naturally against it.  Since this is seen as a pet project of Strickland's even more the reason.  I would be willing to listen to Kasich if he was for the project and wasn't playing political games.

^^Also, Akron isn't really on any realistic statewide plan for a rail line for the next 10 years. The issue is now a political football using the traditional break of northern Democrats vs southern Republicans of Cinci. I feel it is always distrusted that if the Democrats are for something then it is a kneeJERK reaction of the Kasich and friends to be naturally against it. Since this is seen as a pet project of Strickland's even more the reason.   I would be willing to listen to Kasich if he was for the project and wasn't playing political games.

 

I would too and this is a problem I'm wrestling with. I'm all for the 3C project, event the quick start program despite its "speed." However, as someone who leans Republican, I've never been too happy with Ted Strickland. What aggravates me about Kasich is the things he says about the train. Way too closed minded, has shown he hasn't given any time to actually study the project and he aligns himself with the joke of the tea party. I'm not saying my vote comes down to one issue, but this issue is important to me and if Kasich treats other political topics like he treats this one...in an arrogant and ignorant fashion...strickland is getting my vote.

Report ties jobs to high-speed rail bid

Business First of Columbus - by Adrian Burns

 

 

 

Ohio Public Interest Research Group says the state’s high-speed passenger rail plan would create jobs and drive economic growth.

 

The nonprofit advocacy organization released a 63-page report Monday as Ohio officials consider whether to accept a $400 million federal stimulus grant to help develop a passenger rail system connecting Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland. Some state politicians have expressed concern that such a system would not be self-sufficient and would burden Ohio taxpayers with long-term maintenance and operations costs.

 

The Ohio Public Interest Research Group report, however, said the economic benefits would make its construction worthwhile.

 

http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2010/09/20/daily6.html

Passenger train study sparks disagreement

By William Hershey | Monday, September 20, 2010, 02:09 PM

Dayton Daily News

 

A study released on Monday sparked more disagreement about Ohio’s plans to develop passenger rail service linking Dayton, Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland.

 

Also Monday, Amanda Wurst, spokeswoman for Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland, a key booster of the Ohio rail plan, said the governor rejects state Sen. Shannon Jones’ request that the state delay signing planning contracts for the Ohio project until after the election.

 

Full story at: http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2010/09/20/passenger_train_study_sparks_d.html

 

Nice that Crain's Cleveland Business, which rips the state for a rail plan whose details are widely scrutinized, glosses over a newly awarded airline subsidy and provides no details whatsoever about the subsidy per route, proposed usage, cost/benefit ratios or anything else......

 

Gulfstream International Group secures fed subsidy to provide air service to Cleveland

8:53 am, September 20, 2010

 

Gulfstream International Group Inc. (AMEX: GIA), a Florida-based operator of a fleet of commuter aircraft, said it will receive $8.5 million in federal subsidies under the Essential Air Service Program for flights between five small communities and Cleveland.

 

The U.S. Department of Transportation has awarded the company new, two-year contracts as the Essential Air Service provider for the communities of Bradford, Pa.; DuBois, Pa.; Franklin/Oil City, Pa.; Parkersburg, W. Va.; and Jamestown, N.Y. Gulfstream operates flights from all five cities to Cleveland.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20100920/FREE/100929985#

Here's some awesome quotes in a news story. Please subscribe to read the full story about the Ohio PIRG report, which addresses the state's entire regional rail proposal, not just 3C....

 

Sept. 20, 2010

HANNAH REPORT

Rail Study Looks beyond 3C to Regional Network with Ohio in Center

 

The Ohio Public Interest Research Group (Ohio PIRG) released a study Monday outlining the potential economic and environmental benefits of building passenger rail in Ohio and tying it into a larger Midwestern network, while a Democratic lawmaker supportive of the study’s findings needled critics of the 3C rail plan with a charge of “political amnesia.”

 

Amy Brennick, chief operating officer for Bettys Family of Restaurants in Columbus, said increased intercity travel from passenger trains could mean more patrons for her restaurants and thus more jobs. Noting that students and young professionals comprise a big part of her companys workforce, she pitched 3C and rail in general as part of addressing Ohios brain-drain problem.

 

When our employees give us two weeks notice because theyre moving to Atlanta or Portland, unfortunately the reasons have to do far less with what those states offer them and far more about what Ohio is lacking. Mass transportation and rail systems always come up, Brennick said.

 

Annie Ross-Womack, CEO of the Long Street Businessmens Association, said train travel is more productive for professionals because it frees them from congestion and restrictions that bar people from typing on laptops or texting while driving.

 

Mondays press conference also featured many arguments proponents have used in the past: that the Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati route is the densest corridor in America lacking passenger rail; that inaction will leave Ohio behind other states; and that blocking the 3C project will simply mean some other state will benefit from the $400 million Ohio now has claim to.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.rotundacollection.com/promo/hanrep.htm

Gosh, I wonder if Ohio's lack of transportation options has anything whatsoever to do with it's "brain drain" of young creative people??

 

Generation Y Giving Cars a Pass

By Jim Ostroff

 

Selling cars to young adults under 30 is proving to be a real challenge for automakers. Unlike their elders, Generation Yers own fewer cars and don’t drive much. They’re likely to see autos as a source of pollution, not as a sex or status symbol.

 

Motorists aged 21 to 30 now account for 14% of miles driven, down from 21% in 1995.  They’re more apt to ride mass transit to work and use car sharing services...

 

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1523/generation-y-giving-cars-a-pass/

Nice that Crain's Cleveland Business, which rips the state for a rail plan whose details are widely scrutinized, glosses over a newly awarded airline subsidy and provides no details whatsoever about the subsidy per route, proposed usage, cost/benefit ratios or anything else......

 

Gulfstream International Group secures fed subsidy to provide air service to Cleveland

8:53 am, September 20, 2010

 

Gulfstream International Group Inc. (AMEX: GIA), a Florida-based operator of a fleet of commuter aircraft, said it will receive $8.5 million in federal subsidies under the Essential Air Service Program for flights between five small communities and Cleveland.

 

The U.S. Department of Transportation has awarded the company new, two-year contracts as the Essential Air Service provider for the communities of Bradford, Pa.; DuBois, Pa.; Franklin/Oil City, Pa.; Parkersburg, W. Va.; and Jamestown, N.Y. Gulfstream operates flights from all five cities to Cleveland.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20100920/FREE/100929985#

 

Uhhh...they are using public airports are they not? Or are they truly free market and will build their own airports at their own expense? Must be the latter, otherwise that bastion of fairness, Crain's, would do an expose!

 

 

So $8.5 million for air service is ok, BUT NOT SUPPORT FOR RAIL? This demands a response.