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.

 

I can let you know right now:  It doesn't work.  But I'm not trying to convert anyone on this board.

 

It's still the truth though.

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

 

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

If you assert an opinion it is no big deal if someone says it is laughable.  If you assert an opinion and a bunch of people shoot you down, you may be getting blasted because all those guys are assholes, or you might be getting blasted because your opinion is ill-conceived and sloppy.  Or maybe there's another reason.  That's one of the many things that happens when you assert an opinion.  Then of course, there's the question of "who is 'regular folks'?" and "when does blasting of an opinion begin?", because if regular folks are blasting other regular folks then the fact that they are both regular folks becomes irrelevant, and if brutus_buckeye's points are within the definition of "blasting" than he's merely receiving fire in return.

 

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?

 

But the point of course is that he is making a major political error by refusing the money out of spite.  If people are indifferent than he can just as well say that Strickland tied his hands.  People aren't going to care if he back tracks anyway if they are indifferent.

 

Kasich's planning on allowing funds that can only be used for 3C to go to another state out of spite.  He's not anti-federal funds, because he asked if they can be spent here but for other things.  So he's anti-3C.  And the reasons he states for being anti-3C are false.  He either knows they are false, or he doesn't care that they are false.  How do you convince someone who refuses to admit the possibility that independent, objective, measurable criteria exist?

 

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.

This is an interesting idea and something that is a clear attempt to rebundle the same proposal so Kasich can say he did it and it's not "government" or whatever.  It seems like an attempt to save the project based on what's really happening and not some strange assumption that the project hasn't been explained enough.

 

  "What messages are we missing in our principal outreach pieces...."

 

    If I may be so bold, I say that the typical ordinary folk could care less about a stack of pdf's or pamplets, however factual they may be.

 

    At least Cleveland people have the Rapid, the Waterfront Line, the Scenic Railroad, and Amtrak. Cincinnati and Columbus people having nothing to use as an example.

 

   

 

So what came first, the chicken or the egg?

I guess Cincinnati and Columbus want to continue not having an example.

maybe if gasoline goes to $5 a gallon there will be more converts.

maybe if gasoline goes to $5 a gallon there will be more converts.

 

I'm sure there will be. And the $400 million will be long gone by then.

 

FYI: The $400 million will likely be expended by some state by the end of 2011.

 

FYI2: Between 2011-15, worsening oil shortages are forecast (with production falling 10% below projected global demand) according to an increasing number of entities including the U.S. Department of Energy, Pentagon's Joint Forces Command, Goldman Sachs, Bundeswehr Transformation Center (German military think tank), UK Energy Minister Lord Philip Hunt, Sir Richard Branson, International Energy Agency and others.

Perhaps Ken and others could speak to this thought I've had and perhaps it's already been discussed somewhere in the previous 153 pages of this thread (If so, I appologize):

 

Is is possibe that reviving rail service in the 3-C corridor is a hard-sell due to the fact that it has been nearly 40 years since the cities were connected to each other? 

 

For example, other midwestern corridors such as StL-Chi, Det-Chi, Mil-Chi have always had service from the very first day of Amtrak's operation.  In other words it is hard for the majority of the population to even remember when trains connected Cleveland with Cinci via Columbus.  Those who DO remember may only recall crappy service toward the end with slow trains operated by unmotivated freight railroads. 

 

Up here, in the "Enchanted Mitten" we lost a lot of route-miles of passenger service upon Amtrak's inception but new services (Bluewater and Pere Marquette) were easier to get off the ground because there was already a somewhat local example to which we could point.

 

Don't get me wrong, my Buckeye friends, our passenger trains in Michigan have plenty of room for improvement but perhaps we are spoiled by never having lost them.  The same holds true in Illinois, as well.  It seems as though the states that are having the least amount of resistance to their rail plans are those which have had it all along.  Either that, or we have a more rational brand of Republican around here!

Excuse my rant here, I've been reading comments on cleve.bomb  :-o

 

With all the obvious, glaring, no-brainer positives of 3-C, I am completely convinced that its demise will be because of the initial report citing its speed at 39mph. People cannot get over that number and its still cited all over newspaper message boards to this day. Go ahead, tell the nay-sayers about the jobs it will create and the traffic it will reduce, the oil we'll save and the economic impact it will have on our metros....ALL you will here back is 'No one is gonna ride a train that travels at 39mph'. Whoever in ODOT (or whatever agency) released that number before a detailed analysis was done can be thanked for this projects demise.

The much higher cost of true high speed rail -- a number in the billions -- doesn't cause the visceral reaction 39mph does.  I agree completely that the 39mph is the central reason why this thing failed to capture the imagination of the public.

On Monday nights I drive out to the burbs to see my father and some of his friends. We meet at this suburban bar and watch Monday Night Football while drinking shitty domestic Michelob by the pitcher (they all give me hell when I order bottles of Moerlin, which while domestic, I like a lot better, but they can't believe I pay that much more than the Michelob special! ZOMG!). This past election, all of them (even the one guy in the group who voted for Obama) has been bitching about the 3C plan. When I informed them that I was voting for Strickland (not just for the 3C reasons) you would've thought I had spit on all of their mother's graves. (I've probably mentioned these guys in this thread before, if I have I apologize, but I have a point I promise). Well anyways, tonight they were whining about the guy who is on the news lately that refused to be x-rayed by the TSA at an airport. While that's a whole other topic, the ring leader of this monday night group who most vocally opposed the 3C said "Soon, people are gonna stop traveling by air - it's too expensive and too much of a hassle, they're gonna use other options." I reminded him that the guy he just voted for has already vowed to kill the other traveling option we were looking at to which he replied: "No one was gonna ride that s**t anyways, I'd rather drive."

 

I think these people who oppose rail, whether it be light rail, streetcars or things like the 3C oppose it because they don't understand it. None of these guys (aside from my father who is from NYC) have ever experienced rail. They grew up on highways and airports. They'll vehemently oppose rail until it truly isn't cost effective on fossil fuels anymore. When it gets to the point that these guys truly can't afford to fuel their cars or buy that airplane ticket because the 757 has such high fuel costs, then they'll swallow their pride and accept it. Unfortunately, that's what I think its gonna take to change the mindset of stubborn people like this. That or they all die off and the younger generation after them takes charge.

America went through the same dilemma 70-100 years ago in an era when it was the world's largest producer of oil, had Chinese-style rapidly growing industrial economy, and the growth of a middle class. Yet, despite all of this, the sale of new cars started bogged down BEFORE the Great Depression as people bought used cars and urban dwellers weren't buying, period......

 

If we are to have full use of automobiles, cities must be remade, wrote Studebaker President Paul Hoffman in the Saturday Evening Post in 1939. The greatest automobile market today, the greatest untapped field of potential customers, is the large number of city people who refuse to own cars, or use the cars they have very little, because its such a nuisance to take them out. To get at that urban market, Hoffman continued We must dream of gashing our way ruthlessly through built-up sections of overcrowded cities.

 

In the late 30s, the automakers and oil companies were united in a full-scale PR campaign including unveiling their visions of "Cities of Tomorrow" at the World's Fair in 1939. World War II only delayed their vision from becoming a reality.

 

A new land use/transportation vision needs to be articulated for Ohio in an era of changing population demographics, changing marketing needs for younger people, consumer technology innovations that are in competition with driving for time/money, an aging highway system, a rebuilt/stabilized rail system, energy constraints, environmental awareness, etc. None of these were issues 50 years ago when the public and policymakers decided to neglect our rail system in favor of highways, and to a lesser extent aviation.

 

One by one, states are embracing trains and transit as word gets around. And unless we build Soviet-style checkpoints at the state line, it WILL find its way into Ohio. Someday.

As has been noted innumerable times, one of the goals for passenger rail in Ohio is to get Columbus connected to the national system, which Cincinnati (very poorly) and Cleveland and Toledo (poorly) already are. However, if you tried to connect either just north or just south you'd have even more opposition because it would be part of the regional battle for power w/in the state. Honestly, maybe the focus should have been Chicago and Pittsburgh or Huntington/Charleston from Columbus and the other two C's wouldn't feel dirtied by a rail connection to the other.

Perhaps Ken and others could speak to this thought I've had and perhaps it's already been discussed somewhere in the previous 153 pages of this thread (If so, I appologize):

 

Is is possibe that reviving rail service in the 3-C corridor is a hard-sell due to the fact that it has been nearly 40 years since the cities were connected to each other? 

 

For example, other midwestern corridors such as StL-Chi, Det-Chi, Mil-Chi have always had service from the very first day of Amtrak's operation.  In other words it is hard for the majority of the population to even remember when trains connected Cleveland with Cinci via Columbus.  Those who DO remember may only recall crappy service toward the end with slow trains operated by unmotivated freight railroads. 

 

Up here, in the "Enchanted Mitten" we lost a lot of route-miles of passenger service upon Amtrak's inception but new services (Bluewater and Pere Marquette) were easier to get off the ground because there was already a somewhat local example to which we could point.

 

Don't get me wrong, my Buckeye friends, our passenger trains in Michigan have plenty of room for improvement but perhaps we are spoiled by never having lost them.  The same holds true in Illinois, as well.  It seems as though the states that are having the least amount of resistance to their rail plans are those which have had it all along.  Either that, or we have a more rational brand of Republican around here!

 

Yes...the lack of even minimal passenger rail service for 40 years in the 3C is a handicap.  It has made such service literally an "out of sight/ out of mind" challenge. 

 

But I would also submit that the same situation existed with the state-supported Amtrak Downeaster.  There had been no passenger rail service in the Boston to Portland, Maine corridor (a less dense corridor than the 3C) for several decades, but a strong grass-roots effort got legislators and governors to listen and the service was started.  It has been one of the best performers in the entire Amtrak system and continues to be.

 

And yes... it has been used as an example here in Ohio.  But critics here tend to ignore facts and fight with flawed information like the bogus 39 MPH average speed....even though it has been more than adequately refuted as more refined schedules (based on track & signal imrpovements) have been made.

 

The 3C average speed now stands at just over 50 MPH, which will certainly be improved if engineering and construction can ever get underway.

 

BTW: average speed for the Downeaster.... 49 MPH..... and it is the second fastest-growing passenger rail corridor in the nation.

^ That said....here is a citizen from the 3C Corridor that didn't need to hear a different message.  He gets the original one....

 

Passenger rail is critical for Ohio

6:42 PM Friday, November 12, 2010

 

While I did not vote for Gov.-elect John Kasich, I congratulate him on his victory and wish him the best of luck in his first term.

 

One significant reason I did not support him was based on his transportation plans. The day after the election, Kasich declared, “Passenger rail is dead in Ohio,” referring to a plan to re-establish rail service in the Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati corridor.

 

I implore Kasich to study this proposal more closely. If Kasich succeeds, not just the train, but Ohio, will be dead.

 

Read fyull letter at:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/passenger-rail-is-critical-for-ohio-1001931.html

 

The 39 mph estimate really was damaging - good point.

 

I also think, at least with people in Northeast Ohio, that the RTA has also stigmatized large, taxpaid public transportation projects.  We already have one of those trainlines to nowhere (the Flats/E9) line that's occasional Browns games use cannot possibly be worth the millions it cost to make.  Fair or not and for reasons all over the RTA forum on UO, people in NEO loathe the RTA and, from what I've seen and heard directly, by extension are very suspicious of areawide public transportation in general.

 

 

Kasich plans to scrap Strickland’s 3C rail program and send 16,000 jobs elsewhere

Editorial / The Independent Collegian-

 

Published: Monday, November 15, 2010

Updated: Monday, November 15, 2010

 

In spite of the inflammatory criticism he leveled at Strickland regarding the Governor’s responsibility in Ohio’s rising unemployment, Governor-elect Kasich vows to prevent future work on the proposed 3C passenger rail system that would connect Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. Making constant claims that Strickland personally led to 400,000 jobs disappearing from Ohio, Kasich campaigned heavily on the issue of unemployment and stated that creating jobs would be a top priority of his administration.

 

Full editorial at: http://www.independentcollegian.com/mobile/kasich-plans-to-scrap-strickland-s-3c-rail-program-and-send-16-000-jobs-elsewhere-1.2405891

 

Editorial: Partisanship the enemy in trains issue

By the Dayton Daily News | Monday, November 15, 2010, 02:55 AM

 

As soon as Andrew Cuomo was elected governor of New York, he wrote to the U.S. secretary of transportation. He said he understood that the governors-elect of Ohio and Wisconsin didn’t want federal money for passenger rail service. Mr. Cuomo said New York does want it.

 

The re-elected Democratic governor of Illinois has been making similar sounds.

 

In fact, he’s become involved in the train controversy in Wisconsin, where the issue is much hotter at the moment than in Ohio.

 

Full editorial at: http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/opinion/entries/2010/11/15/editorial_partisanship_the_ene.html?cxtype=feedbot

Councilman Brian Cummins was the lead sponsor. Other sponsors are noted at the scibd link below...

 

Brian Cummins · “That train is dead…” 3C Rail Project being killed – can it be saved?

November 16th, 2010

 

The State of Ohio’s Governor-elect John Kasich plans to kill the State’s 3C Rail Project that has been awarded $400 million by the federal government.

 

Cleveland City Council passed a resolution yesterday to urge Kasich to support the plan.

Ref: Cleve City Council 3C Rail Corridor Resolution

 

 

What has been proposed, funded and at risk: $400 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, 250 miles of track.

Ref:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rail_cleveland-cincinnati.PDF

 

High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program

Cleveland – Columbus – Dayton – Cincinnati

 

This new corridor connects four major metropolitan areas in Ohio: Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati. This significant route, named the “3C Corridor,” has a length of 250 miles and will serve communities near Lake Erie, in Central Ohio, and the Tri-State region around Cincinnati. These metropolitan areas are among the largest in the United States that are currently not served by passenger rail.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.brewedfreshdaily.com/2010/that-train-is-dead-3c-rail-project-being-killed-can-it-be-saved

It's really all going to come down to how spiteful Kasich wants to be.  He's got an easy out (just say Strickland tied his hands during the post election.  He can even say that's why the Republicans aren't confirming S's nominees, because Strickland's actions were "unprecedented" or some such b.s.) He won't have to run for four years and he's never going to be a presidential contender, so there's absolutely no political downside to him if he just lets it go on.  If he doesn't it is a willful act of sabotage.

What about the State Controlling Boards roll in this matter?  Even if Kasich is tied to doing/convinced/whatever this plan would still need the support of the board to fund the construction and improvements to the rail line. 

Has Kasich acknowledged, once, the benefit this money will have on our existing freight rails? It seems this keeps getting brushed under the rug?

The Dayton Most Metro website has a good pro-con op-ed on the issue, with a LOT of comments (For them).  The local libertarians are out in force (the con part was written by a prolific libertarian web presence)

 

The Second Death of High Speed Rail in Ohio

 

I commented that the money should be redirected to North Carolina or Illinois.  But some good counter-arguments are needed on this thread.

Has Kasich acknowledged, once, the benefit this money will have on our existing freight rails? It seems this keeps getting brushed under the rug?

 

No.  He has bveen quoted as saying he wants more freight to be hauled by rail, but has never acknowledged the freight benefits of the 3C project.

 

This tells me he is only paying lip service to the issue of freight rail.

What about the State Controlling Boards roll in this matter? Even if Kasich is tied to doing/convinced/whatever this plan would still need the support of the board to fund the construction and improvements to the rail line.

 

If the state of Ohio wants to move forward on 3C, then yes, it has to go to the state controlling aboard for a supermajority (5-2) approval of capital expenditures and a simple majority (4-3) approval of operating costs.

 

BTW, road projects only need a simple majority for capital and no vote at all for operating costs.

Problem solved: http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-replaces-costly-highspeed-rail-plan-with-hig,18473/

Fom American Public Radio's "Market Place".....

 

Transportation Nation

High speed rails could ask planes and trains to work together

 

As we wrap up our series on the future of transportation, Alex Goldmark explains the benefit of high speed railroads, and their relationship with the airline industry.

 

Full story at:http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/11/10/am-high-speed-rails-could-ask-planes-and-trains-to-work-together/

lmao thats awesome.

Back to reality..... Ohio gets more negative national press....

 

States won't be able to reroute high-speed rail funding

By Michael D. Bolden

Tuesday, November 16, 2010;

The Washington Post

 

The Obama administration plans to reallocate money designated for high-speed rail if the states granted the funds reject them.

 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood made the announcement Monday night to hundreds of politicians, businesspeople, urban planners and rail enthusiasts gathered in New York City to assess the state of high-speed rail in the United States during a three-day conference sponsored by the U.S. High Speed Rail Association (USHSR) trade group.

 

Critics have said that high-speed rail would not attract enough riders to justify the multibillion-dollar price tag. They have also questioned spending billions of dollars on infrastructure for the network when the nation's economy is fragile and governments are struggling with deficits.

 

Full story at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/15/AR2010111507164_pf.html

Xavier University Student Senate supports 3C!

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/cb96a8640f.pdf

Just sent this to Kasich and his Cheif of Staff

 

Dear Governor-Elect Kasich,

 

Congratulations on your victory. I believe you and your administration will be able to move Ohio's economy well into the 21st century and turn it into a model for other states. I admire your resolve on the issues facing Ohio, including balancing the budget, but I urge you to reconsider your stance on the 3-C rail corridor. As a college student in Cleveland with a parent living in Columbus and extended family in Cincinnati, I would love to have an option, other than my car, when traveling to visit them. Years of driving between Cleveland and Columbus and hundreds of unproductive hours spent sitting in my car has left me wanting an alternative means of transportation. I understand that rail service is not the best choice for everyone traveling in the state, but please do not discount the fact that thousands of people, like myself, could benefit greatly from the service.

 

Thank you for listening,

 

Chris

Outstanding letter. A personal story is always a winning message. Thanks Chris.

 

EDIT: OK, here it is. The Facebook page you've been waiting for....

 

SAVE OHIO'S 3C CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT

 

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-Ohios-3C-Corridor-Rail-Project/144485448932887?v=wall

 

After one week, Wisconsin's save the train page has 9,000 friends while the opposition page has just 900. Let's see how many friends we can get for the Save the 3C page in the next week!

Well, as long as we're posting personal stories, here's the letter I sent a few days ago.  Note - I have completely changed my tune about the train over the past 6 months and am now a major proponent.

 

 

Dear Governor Kasich:

 

As a 28-year-old small business owner located in a Cleveland suburb, I would to express my utter disappointment in your refusing federal funds for the train line. I personally have a number of clients at OSU and UC, and I regularly drive out to see some of my larger clients first hand. For a long time, I was encouraged and excited about this train line, which would have allowed me the opportunity to save on gas, wear-and-tear, general stress, and I would have been able to work on the trains going to see my clients. All of these factors would benefit my business in so many ways. And this was when the trainline was rumored to run at an average 39mph including stops, whereas of course now that number has gone up quite a bit.

 

To be blunt, Ohio is a very unattractive place to work. Blame it on the weather, the union strongholds, the remarkable amount of corruption, the multitude of taxes, racial divides (and hatred all too often), dwindling property values, never-ending brain drain, aging population, and a general lack of momentum, Ohio may not have a real future. I'm from here because my family is here, but my friends have mostly moved to other states, and there are a million people like me. I stuck it out because I believe things can improve, and one of those reasons is innovation, that the state can take the necessary risks for financial improvement. Such as the advancement of a train-line that connects the three major cities.

 

Now the project is more or less a dead horse, and this is just wrong. Governor, you have to give people like me a reason to stay, and I don't see how sending $400 million already earmarked funds to New York is going to do that. Additionally, you should not have asked for the money to be reallocated because I'm sure you've read the bill and you knew exactly that the money was locked up. It was an obvious political ploy and not worthy of you.

 

Small business owners in their twenties - we're the future of the state, well, at least we have to be, and you have to make us want to stay. You can only cut taxes and spending so much (and by the way, I'm far more concerned with the unacceptable military spending and farm subsidizations that so many Republicans just accept), and that doesn't seem to always work - look at Indiana as an example of how tax cuts are not everything.

 

For me to stay here, the state has to do right by me, and if you look at what's happening in Cleveland, you'll see nothing but failure on a local and state level. Of course some good things are happening here and there, most notably in University Circle, but by and large, there is no reason to stay. People don't want to be here and they're leaving in droves. Governor, people like trains, people want trains, and people will use trains. At least I will.

 

Please do the right thing for your state.

 

Lol, Wisconsin may still be in the running if Governor-elect Walker continues being an idiot. 

 

Essentially, now he's proposing to spend the money on upgrading the same tracks that he's proposing diverting the money from.  I love the comments on this article.

 

Walker open to redirecting high-speed train money to other rail projects

 

By Larry Sandler and Annysa Johnson of the Journal Sentinel

Nov. 15, 2010 |(380) COMMENTS

 

For the first time, Governor-elect Scott Walker is raising the possibility he could support spending $810 million in federal funds on train service - just not the train service for which it was allocated.

 

It's a potentially significant change for a politician who has insisted that all of the federal stimulus money should be redirected from high-speed rail to Wisconsin highways - a position flatly rejected by federal and state officials.

 

Rail supporters still want the federal dollars spent on their intended purpose: a planned high-speed rail line from Milwaukee to Madison. More than 200 people rallied Monday outside the Talgo Inc. train plant to urge Walker to relent.

 

Walker, the Milwaukee County executive, has repeatedly vowed to block construction of that line. He reiterated that position Sunday in an interview with Mike Gousha on "UpFront" on WISN-TV (Channel 12).

 

In that interview, Walker said using the money for highways is still his preference, but that he and his staff also had "looked at options relative to rail." He specifically mentioned Amtrak's existing Milwaukee-to-Chicago Hiawatha line and the long-distance Empire Builder, which runs from Chicago to the Pacific Northwest by way of Milwaukee, the Twin Cities and several Wisconsin communities.

...

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/108232259.html

^ I just about died after reading this one

 

'Scotty is confused and his simple mind can't wiggle

out of his idiotic position. ' :laugh:

Thanks for your letter, TBideon.

And thank you, KJP.  You're probably 90% of the reason I changed my mind about the trainline.

Thanks. I appreciate hearing that.

Is it possible to take the issue before the voters and bypass the state controllers board and governor?

I suppose one could draft a Referendum ballot initiative with wording requiring the State to accept the $400M and use it for the 3C start up costs. However, the Gen. Assembly could then refuse to provide whatever additional monies needed to finish the project and refuse to fund its operations.

^I am sure the money will be re-appropriated before that could ever be done.  Ashame as so much work went into getting the $$ in the first place as Ohio competed with other states for the limited funds.

 

EDIT:  competed with other "more progressive" states

Perhaps Ken and others could speak to this thought I've had and perhaps it's already been discussed somewhere in the previous 153 pages of this thread (If so, I appologize):

 

Is is possibe that reviving rail service in the 3-C corridor is a hard-sell due to the fact that it has been nearly 40 years since the cities were connected to each other? 

 

No question about it. Even if we had daytime service with the existing Amtrak routes through Ohio, our efforts would be greatly simplified. With the trains sneaking through in the middle of the night, it's about as close to not having any service at all.

 

History lesson:  When Amtrak was being created in 1970, the private railroads were still running about 400 daily intercity passenger trains nationwide (not including commuter trains etc. like the Long Island Railroad or Chicago extensive system out to the suburbs). The Department of Transportation was designing the new Amtrak, including which train routes the federal government would continue to operate.

 

As usual, Congress had a major role in what routes, frequency of services, etc. would be added to the system. Congresspersons and Senators who spoke up for their favorite trains and routes would be more able to save them than those who didn't speak up.

 

Congressfolk in other states pushed for keeping long- short-distance trains, such as Midwest routes like Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Milwaukee and Chicago-Detroit, or eastern routes like New York-Buffalo and Philadelphia-Pittsburgh. Congresspersons in other states also sought several east-west trunk routes through Ohio, but Ohio reps and senators were silent. There wasn't even any train proposed to be saved through Cleveland and Toledo. And Ohio Congressionals didn't push for any north-south routes in Ohio, such as 3C.

 

So the final Amtrak map and schedules that Amtrak implemented on the first day of service, May 1, 1971, treated Ohio like the rail equivalent of a flyover state. The 400 daily trains that were running nationwide on April 30 was slashed to just 184 the following day under Amtrak. Ohio Governor John J. Gilligan wanted to fix Ohio's omission by joining with New York State in committing state funds for a train called the Lake Shore between Chicago, Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo and New York. The train started on May 10, 1971 but was canceled in November of that year when the General Assembly refused to approved funding for the train. The Lake Shore was reinstated in 1975 as a federally funded "experimental route" and has been running ever since.

 

But Ohio missed out on having better Amtrak service because its Congressional delegation in 1970-71 did not speak up and urge the inclusion of more Ohio passenger routes in the planned Amtrak system. Except for a few federal experimental trains (and none have been added since the 1970s), only state action can add new trains/routes to the basic Amtrak system. And the Ohio state government has refused to do this since 1971.

 

So, jeffinmichigan, this is a long way of saying I agree with you wholeheartedly. The reason why Michigan, Illinois, New York and others have an easier time selling state investments in trains is most definitely due to the fact they have always had something useful to demonstrate.

 

And the reason why Ohio doesn't have any examples goes back 40 years.

Funding nationwide is a joke. Boston gets 14 billion for a leaking tunnel. Wisconsin gets $810 million to connect 2.5 million people through high speed rail, yet Ohio only gets 400 million to connect 7+ million people through  high speed rail and we are pissing it away. lol

If the state of Ohio wants to move forward on 3C, then yes, it has to go to the state controlling aboard for a supermajority (5-2) approval of capital expenditures and a simple majority (4-3) approval of operating costs.

 

BTW, road projects only need a simple majority for capital and no vote at all for operating costs.

 

That is awesomely awful information.  Totally ridiculous how the system is gamed.  Thanks.

Perhaps Ken and others could speak to this thought I've had and perhaps it's already been discussed somewhere in the previous 153 pages of this thread (If so, I appologize):

 

Is is possibe that reviving rail service in the 3-C corridor is a hard-sell due to the fact that it has been nearly 40 years since the cities were connected to each other? 

 

No question about it. Even if we had daytime service with the existing Amtrak routes through Ohio, our efforts would be greatly simplified. With the trains sneaking through in the middle of the night, it's about as close to not having any service at all.

 

History lesson:  When Amtrak was being created in 1970, the private railroads were still running about 400 daily intercity passenger trains nationwide (not including commuter trains etc. like the Long Island Railroad or Chicago extensive system out to the suburbs). The Department of Transportation was designing the new Amtrak, including which train routes the federal government would continue to operate.

 

As usual, Congress had a major role in what routes, frequency of services, etc. would be added to the system. Congresspersons and Senators who spoke up for their favorite trains and routes would be more able to save them than those who didn't speak up.

 

Congressfolk in other states pushed for keeping long- short-distance trains, such as Midwest routes like Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Milwaukee and Chicago-Detroit, or eastern routes like New York-Buffalo and Philadelphia-Pittsburgh. Congresspersons in other states also sought several east-west trunk routes through Ohio, but Ohio reps and senators were silent. There wasn't even any train proposed to be saved through Cleveland and Toledo. And Ohio Congressionals didn't push for any north-south routes in Ohio, such as 3C.

 

So the final Amtrak map and schedules that Amtrak implemented on the first day of service, May 1, 1971, treated Ohio like the rail equivalent of a flyover state. The 400 daily trains that were running nationwide on April 30 was slashed to just 184 the following day under Amtrak. Ohio Governor John J. Gilligan wanted to fix Ohio's omission by joining with New York State in committing state funds for a train called the Lake Shore between Chicago, Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo and New York. The train started on May 10, 1971 but was canceled in November of that year when the General Assembly refused to approved funding for the train. The Lake Shore was reinstated in 1975 as a federally funded "experimental route" and has been running ever since.

 

But Ohio missed out on having better Amtrak service because its Congressional delegation in 1970-71 did not speak up and urge the inclusion of more Ohio passenger routes in the planned Amtrak system. Except for a few federal experimental trains (and none have been added since the 1970s), only state action can add new trains/routes to the basic Amtrak system. And the Ohio state government has refused to do this since 1971.

 

So, jeffinmichigan, this is a long way of saying I agree with you wholeheartedly. The reason why Michigan, Illinois, New York and others have an easier time selling state investments in trains is most definitely due to the fact they have always had something useful to demonstrate.

 

And the reason why Ohio doesn't have any examples goes back 40 years.

 

KJP is right in that Ohio had few champions in its Congressional delegation and almost none at the state level when Amtrak was created and that low level of support has persisted to this day. Conversely, the process by which the Amtrak route structure was developed was politically driven to a very large degree. When one community or another was left off the initial map, many protested, but most Ohio communties did not until after the intial system started.

 

So, when Montana had Senate Majority leader Mike Mansfield in its corner, they got the North Coast Hiawatha on the old NP route and West Virginia had Congressman Harley Staggers, who demanded a train from Washington to Parkersburg WV, Ohio leaders sat on their hands. Thus, Cleveland and Toledo were left off the map and there was no 3C Corridor or Cleveland-Pittsburgh route.

 

The only Ohio champion I can think of was the Late Sen. Robert Taft (Gov Taft's father), who pushed for reinstatement of the Lake Shore Limited, which began operating in late 1975. He even ran TV campaign ads bragging about it and was on the rear platform of the train as it passed thru Ohio. He even wanted the 3C corridor and Cleveland-Pittsburgh and publically said so. Current Repubs would do well to emulate the late senator!

 

Otherwise, Ohio politicians were out to lunch when trains like the National Limited came off in 1979, ending all service to Columbus and Dayton. Columbus area rep Sam devine called the train a waste of money and Sen Glenn offered no support, saying "we have to make sacrifices" when dealing with tight budgets. We haven't had a train since.

 

    If it makes you feel any better, Ohio is under-represented at the federal level by the nature of distribution of seats in Congress. Ohio ranks 7th in population, but has only two Senators, just like every other state. It's a rigged game.

 

If it makes you feel any better, Ohio is under-represented at the federal level by the nature of distribution of seats in Congress. Ohio ranks 7th in population, but has only two Senators, just like every other state. It's a rigged game.

 

That's why we have a House of Representatives, where each state's delegation is based on population. 

 

  Yes, Obviously...

 

  But think about it this way. Providence, Rhode Island, is the largest city in it's state. It gets, just about for itself, 2 Representative, 2 Senators, and 4 Electoral Votes. Plus, it's right next door to a lot of other states. 

 

    Ohio gets 18 Representatives, 2 Senators, and 20 Electoral Votes, which are split among 7 cities, for an average of 2.5 Reps, 0.3 Senators, and 2.9 Electoral votes per city. I didn't even count all of Ohio's other cities.

 

                        Providence    Cincinnati 

Representatives    2                2.5

Senators            2.5              0.3

Electoral Votes    4                2.9

Total                  8.5              5.7

 

Well, the math isn't exact, but I hope I proved my point. Ohio cities especially come short in the Senate. This is why the east coast cities have an advantage in federal funding.

 

 

 

Is there hope for 3C if Obama pulls an Ike and federalizes the national HSR system?

Even the states own the Interstate highways. The feds provide 80% of the capital funding while the states pay the day-to-day operating/maintenance costs. Same with conventional/high-speed passenger rail.

East Coast cities WANT rail and their elected officials are not shy about it  --- THAT--- is why they have an advantage... though it does have something to do with numbers the more important thing is that they are not reluctant or indecisive on the issue.

 

Is there hope for 3C if Obama pulls an Ike and federalizes the national HSR system?

 

The % of funding provided by the Fed Gov varies per project, but it in the case of 3C it is right around 80%.  The amount of funds that Ohio has to commit to the initial phase is RIDICULOUSLY low.