But if the RTA's along the 3C aren't willing to go cross-ways with the incoming administration, we would seem to still be a long way off from anything like that happening.

 

GCRTA hasn't shown much willingness to expand the Rapid.  Cincinnati is just getting started on a downtown streetcar and light rail is still on the back burner (if not in the freezer) both in Cincy and Columbus.  I don't know what willingness there is at Dayton's RTA to lead the charge on such an effort, but they would have to begin some kind of local rail-based project (light rail or commuter rail).

 

Not saying this isn't a good idea, because it is a very good idea.  But it's going to take a long time to build a constituency in an atmosphere that has been poisoned by the killing off of the 3C project.

Except that GCRTA has made an offer to Lorain County officials (and those in other counties) to expand in those areas (the reason is self-preservation more than anything, as Cuyahoga County's taxbase is being lost to the collar counties). The reason why I single out Lorain County is that it has an active planning effort for commuter rail that GCRTA has been a partner in.

 

GCRTA is also engaged in active planning to extend the Blue Line to North Randall.

 

None of these and other urban/metro area rail projects take into account the Joint Powers Authority idea, which I consider separate. What each one does is help change the culture a little bit, and in some cases removes physical, political and cultural barriers to future rail expansions, including 3C.

Here's hoping. 

It will be very interesting to see what happens if gas heads north of 4 dollars again. The best thing that could happen to passenger rail in Ohio would be for a gas rise that forces capitulation from the current administration. With every dime rise over the next couple years, the heat on Kasich can only grow.

 

The experts at Shell Oil belief their nightmare scenario of $5/gal gas in the US will happen by the end of 2012.  There's a VERY good chance we'll see $5/gal plus gas within Kasich's term... let's see what he has to say then.

It will be very interesting to see what happens if gas heads north of 4 dollars again. The best thing that could happen to passenger rail in Ohio would be for a gas rise that forces capitulation from the current administration. With every dime rise over the next couple years, the heat on Kasich can only grow.

 

The experts at Shell Oil belief their nightmare scenario of $5/gal gas in the US will happen by the end of 2012.  There's a VERY good chance we'll see $5/gal plus gas within Kasich's term... let's see what he has to say then.

His response will be to blame gas taxes and suggest lowering them.

Here's hoping. 

 

In the absence of state leadership, hope in our local and regional entities is all we have.

 

The experts at Shell Oil belief their nightmare scenario of $5/gal gas in the US will happen by the end of 2012.  There's a VERY good chance we'll see $5/gal plus gas within Kasich's term... let's see what he has to say then.

 

"Drill baby, drill!"

 

Seriously, there will be a huge push to drill for oil and gas in state parks, in continental shelf/offshore regions, etc. According to the International Energy Agency, we have to find the production equivalent of six Saudi Arabias to make up for the widening gap between worldwide oil field depletion rates and projected global energy growth by 2030.

 

A whole basket of options needs to be brought into this. Considering the share of overall oil consumption that transportation represents (see below), if changing our transportation and land use policies aren't part of the equation, then changing our political leadership should be:

 

 

The above collides with the chart, below-left:

 

CEO calls Kasich’s decision to kill Ohio’s job-creating high-speed rail project “mind-boggling”

Pracht: "Where would Ohio be today if it opted out of the interstate highway system?"

January 4, 2011

 

John Kasich, the newly tea-party governor of Ohio doesn’t just deny climate science.  He is apparently unaware that everyone from the German military to the once staid International Energy Agency is warning of a looming peak oil crisis (see World’s top energy economist warns: “We have to leave oil before oil leaves us”).

 

And so the Tea Party crowd is declaring unilateral disarmament in our effort to stop the nearly $1 billion day outflow of money from Americans to foreign oil producer (see “Passenger rail is not in Ohio’s future”: New GOP governors kill $1.2 Billion in high-speed rail jobs).

 

Kasich can stop passenger rail for now, but he can’t stop the inexorable march of gasoline prices past $3 a gallon to $4 and then $5, which will ultimately reveal how inane his decision was.  The CEO of an Ohio-based railroad-car manufacturer severely criticized Kasich’s myopia, as ThinkProgress reports:

 

READ MORE AT:

http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/04/kasich-kill-ohio-jobs-high-speed-rail-project/

Read the whole letter at:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2011/01/06/0106-web-only-letters-to-the-editor.html?sid=101

 

 

....I frequently use Amtrak California services to Sacramento, The Bay Area and Southern California. They are comfortable, fast (mostly running at 79-miles per hour) and affordable. The $17 round-trip senior fare to San Francisco can't be beat. By the time I'd pay the $4 or $6 bridge toll, there wouldn't be enough left over to park anywhere for very long. And, instead of fighting traffic, I read and watch the scenery. Amtrak California has evolved from a bare-bones network to become an important part of the state's travel infrastructure carrying more than 10-million passengers annually. Modesto has twelve trains daily and Emeryville (the San Francisco connection) has forty-four. There are significant plans in the works to greatly enhance the systems and destinations within the state and I am grateful that several hundred million dollars of additional funding has come our way from Ohio.

 

All I can say is, thank you Ohio for helping us move farther into the future of modern transportation!

 

Robert HeywoodModesto, Calif.

^ http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2011/01/06/0106-web-only-letters-to-the-editor.html?sid=101

 

"Rail" got included in with the link.  You can clean up this post if you want to edit yours.

Thanks. Done.

After Kasich is sworn in tomorrow, a number of documents are likely to start disappearing from ODOT's website. Here are a few of the likely casualties. You might want to save these for your own records.....

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/policy/Documents/ODOT-Foundation_for_Transformation.pdf

 

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

 

And just about everything at:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/3CisME/Pages/default.aspx

Stop by the back room at Flannery's, 323 Prospect Avenue East, 216-781-7782, on Thursday between 6-8 p.m. All Aboard Ohio will be there as will others to welcome Cleveland-native Rick Harnish back to town. Rick is director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association.

 

It's an informal meet-and-greet opportunity. No reservations required. No cover charge. Just visit -- it's a short walk from the Tower City Rapid rail station and the Euclid HealthLine BRT.

I think it might be smart for rail supporters in Ohio to push rail as useful even if it isn't HSR. HSR is great but it's not necessary. We need rail.

I downloaded all of the Ohio Hub plan and Ohio Hub Economic Impact Analysis documents a couple of weeks ago. 

 

After Kasich is sworn in tomorrow, a number of documents are likely to start disappearing from ODOT's website. Here are a few of the likely casualties. You might want to save these for your own records.....

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/policy/Documents/ODOT-Foundation_for_Transformation.pdf

 

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

 

And just about everything at:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/3CisME/Pages/default.aspx

Will an activist org have those files available for download if the state took them offline?

I think it might be smart for rail supporters in Ohio to push rail as useful even if it isn't HSR. HSR is great but it's not necessary. We need rail.

 

You're absolutely right, but therein lies the problem.  We can't afford high speed rail right now, nor is it even really that useful without an underlying network of "regular" speed rail.  To propose high speed rail where no rail exists at all is a very tough sell due to the costs.  On the other hand, the naysayers and mouth breathing troglodytes in government and the general populace don't see the point of a regular speed network either, as we've very clearly seen.  All they see is "slower than driving the interstate" (even if in reality it isn't) and then completely discount it. 

I think it might be smart for rail supporters in Ohio to push rail as useful even if it isn't HSR. HSR is great but it's not necessary. We need rail.

 

You're absolutely right, but therein lies the problem. We can't afford high speed rail right now, nor is it even really that useful without an underlying network of "regular" speed rail. To propose high speed rail where no rail exists at all is a very tough sell due to the costs. On the other hand, the naysayers and mouth breathing troglodytes in government and the general populace don't see the point of a regular speed network either, as we've very clearly seen. All they see is "slower than driving the interstate" (even if in reality it isn't) and then completely discount it.

Right. That's why speed shouldn't be the selling point. Rail should compete where cars offer little to no competition.

 

The hype around HSR is a millstone.

But as we've seen, all anyone seems to look at or care about is speed.  I and most of us here understand the other benefits, but the vast majority of people out there don't, and they simply don't care about those other benefits.  The ones who are going to oppose rail are not the people who are too poor to own a car, or are too old or otherwise unable to drive, both of which are nowhere near a majority of the population.  They simply don't care about them, nor do they care about livability or revitalizing city centers.  That's what makes it such a challenge. 

LTE in today's Cleveland Plain Dealer:

 

3C rail: Arguments against don't stand up to scrutiny

Published: Sunday, January 09, 2011, 4:01 AM

By Other Voices

 

Brent Larkin's Jan. 3 column "A train that Ohioans were lucky to miss" displayed an alarming ignorance of facts about Ohio's 3C rail project and a surprising animosity toward outgoing Gov. Ted Strickland.

 

When I originally moved from Dayton to Cleveland in order to attend Case Western Reserve University, I began a 10-year love-hate relationship with Ohio's interstate corridors. With the advent of passenger rail, I, like many other young Ohioans, was ecstatic for increased travel options that would unlock Northeast Ohio to other regions of the state. Unfortunately, that opportunity seems momentarily to have passed.

 

Full LTE at: http://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2011/01/3c_rail_arguments_against_dont.html

Editorial: What comes after death of train plan?

By the Dayton Daily News | Friday, January 7, 2011, 11:53 AM

 

With the death of 3C, Ohio needs to start thinking about another approach to passenger train service, most specifically about privately funded high-speed rail.

 

The great rap on 3C — the plan to run conventional-speed trains from northeast to southwest Ohio via Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati, through Dayton — was that it was too slow and would cost the state money.

 

Some critics of 3C said shorter routes with faster trains would make more economic sense, say from Dayton to Cincinnati or from Cleveland to Akron.

 

Full editorial at: http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/opinion/entries/2011/01/07/editorial_what_comes_after_dea.html?cxtype=feedbot

I think it might be smart for rail supporters in Ohio to push rail as useful even if it isn't HSR. HSR is great but it's not necessary. We need rail.

 

You're absolutely right, but therein lies the problem. We can't afford high speed rail right now, nor is it even really that useful without an underlying network of "regular" speed rail. To propose high speed rail where no rail exists at all is a very tough sell due to the costs. On the other hand, the naysayers and mouth breathing troglodytes in government and the general populace don't see the point of a regular speed network either, as we've very clearly seen. All they see is "slower than driving the interstate" (even if in reality it isn't) and then completely discount it.

 

Speed does matter.  In evaluating modes of transportation, speed will always matter.  A modern and competitive intercity rail plan might find a receptive audience in Ohio.  It doesn't need to make a profit, but it does need to be competitive with other modes.

Surveys done in the past by Amtrak and other passenger rail corridor entities indicates that while speed is not unimportant to the current and potential riders, it is not the top concern.  Reliable and timely service, as well as convenience are almost always named as the top concerns.

Surveys done in the past by Amtrak and other passenger rail corridor entities indicates that while speed is not unimportant to the current and potential riders, it is not the top concern. Reliable and timely service, as well as convenience are almost always named as the top concerns.

 

Maybe so, but my point is that those who would oppose the project only seem to care about speed.  327 is right that speed is an important factor, but while it may not be a priority to current and potential riders, it is the primary talking point, argument against, critical flaw, or what have you, for the opponents.  Those are the people that need to be won over somehow.

Those are people who claim to care about speed. I have no doubt that some do. But there were several people in Kasich's camp who were paid to be hitman for this rail project because it would start a change away from our over-dependence on cars in Ohio. They were (and some still are) looking for any and all reasons to kill (and keep dead) the 3C rail project. The initially proposed average speed of 39 mph made it vulnerable, no question. But when the operation simulation was conducted and it showed the average speed would make 3C the third-fastest new-start rail service in American in 30 years, the 3C hitmen needed a new tagline to quickly kill further thinking about 3C.

 

So they added the argument "now is not the time" with the state's $8 billion deficit -- even though the deficit is in the general fund. Instead the 3C funding would come from ODOT's budget which is legally and financially firewalled from the general fund. 3C would have NO IMPACT on the state's deficit.

 

So for many, this isn't about speed. This is about keeping transportation choices out of Ohio.

The primary arguemnt used by the oppsition to the 3C was not speed.... it was the perceived costs to taxpayers and criticisms that enough riders would use trains.... however unfounded as those perceptions may bem, that's what they primarily threw up to make it an elecion year issue.

 

Critics did refer to "slow trains", but most of the critics (Kasich and certain state legislators) were hardly interested in high-speed rail (which is even more expensive to develop).  They ultimately aren't interested in pasenger rail at all.  Trying to convice them to spend more $$$ on faster trains is a waste of time and energy.

 

That said, there are passenger rail advocates who were vocal about the point that Ohio should just make the leap directly to high-speed trains.  Given the political condition described above (and in other posts on this thread) they will have an even tougher task than did proponents of the 3C project.

Maybe so, but my point is that those who would oppose the project only seem to care about speed.

 

I disagree.  Those who oppose the project do so because the Republicans told them to.  Speed was just one of their rationalizations for opposing it.  If the train were to go 500 MPH, they would have found another reason to oppose it.

A legit HSR propsal would garner a lot more public support than 3C did.  It may be more expensive but it's also modern and competitive, therefore arguably worth the investment.  Most 3C opponents I encountered were not even a little bit anti-rail, nor did they take orders from Republicans, but they cited speed as the overwhelming factor in their assessment of the project.

Most 3C opponents I encountered were not even a little bit anti-rail, nor did they take orders from Republicans, but they cited speed as the overwhelming factor in their assessment of the project.

I would agree with this, but a true high speed plan would cost billions and I think the price tag would doom the plan. (As it has in the past when HSR was pushed for in Ohio.)

I thought I recalled hearing that to build the 3c up to the expected 110mph capacity would cost somewhere in the range of $1.5 billion.  This is still not a high speed system but would be considerably faster than the original 3c plan.  If the system was built up to this level from the start what would the average speeds and trip times be?  Would it need more of a subsidy than the first proposal?  If the subsidy was similar but the trip times were somewhere in the range of 3-3.5 hours from Cleveland to Cincinnati I think the plan would have had more support.  Would Ohio have a chance in the future to get federal funding to build the 3c to this level from the start?  I also think that the 39mph number was the number 1 factor of why the 3c did not have enough support.  Among people that I talked to that were not paying close attention to the 3c ordeal, the first thing they said negatively about the train was that it was a bad plan because of its speed.  Among anyone with a clue, speed would not be a big issue but among the average highway driving Ohioan the 39mph figure appeared pitiful.

A legit HSR propsal would garner a lot more public support than 3C did.  It may be more expensive but it's also modern and competitive, therefore arguably worth the investment.  Most 3C opponents I encountered were not even a little bit anti-rail, nor did they take orders from Republicans, but they cited speed as the overwhelming factor in their assessment of the project.

 

The incremental approach had pretty solid support according to an on-line survey conducted during the 3C planning process by ODOT:

 

9. 9. Like other states, Ohio is taking a step-by-step approach to expanding passenger rail service. First the state would introduce limited stop, 79 mph service linking Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland with three trains in the morning and three trains at night. More trains, and possibly more station stops, would be added as more people ride the trains. As ridership grows, more improvements would be made to introduce up to 110 mph rail service in the 3C corridor and elsewhere throughout the state. Do you support this step-by-step approach? (pick one)

 

  a. Yes

  Number Of Responses 6432

Percentage Of Responses(79%)   

 

 

 

  b. No

  Number Of Responses1354

Percentage Of Responses(17%)   

 

 

 

  c. No opinion

  Number Of Responses396

Percentage Of Responses(5%)   

 

 

 

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

 

Total: 8182

 

^ That question is poorly worded. People probably thought "79 mph service" meant 79 mph average service.

I downloaded all of the Ohio Hub plan and Ohio Hub Economic Impact Analysis documents a couple of weeks ago. 

 

After Kasich is sworn in tomorrow, a number of documents are likely to start disappearing from ODOT's website. Here are a few of the likely casualties. You might want to save these for your own records.....

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/policy/Documents/ODOT-Foundation_for_Transformation.pdf

 

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

 

And just about everything at:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/3CisME/Pages/default.aspx

 

that last link prompts you for a login ID and password now. I'm presuming that was not previously the case?

^ That question is poorly worded. People probably thought "79 mph service" meant 79 mph average service.

 

I don't think folks were considering average speed until those that wanted to end the project decided to run with it

"9. 9. Like other states, Ohio is taking a step-by-step approach to expanding passenger rail service. First the state would introduce limited stop, 79 mph service linking Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland with three trains in the morning and three trains at night. More trains, and possibly more station stops, would be added as more people ride the trains. As ridership grows, more improvements would be made to introduce up to 110 mph rail service in the 3C corridor and elsewhere throughout the state. Do you support this step-by-step approach? (pick one) yes/no/no opinion"

 

^ That question is poorly worded. People probably thought "79 mph service" meant 79 mph average service.

 

Yes... and the wording was designed to elicit a positive response.  Such is often the case with surveys, particularly when there's a conflict of interest involved.  Here we have ODOT casting its own plan in the best possible light then asking for approval.  Who's going to say no to that statement as worded?  It describes improvement, and everybody likes improvement.  It doesn't ask whether the incremental approach would be preferable to pursuing high speed service, or preferable to doing nothing.  It doesn't ask whether initiating 3C service would be preferable to upgrading existing service, or preferable to pursuing other new routes.  It's cast as all or nothing, or way or the highway, from the unnecessary first sentence to the limited answer choices.

"9. 9. Like other states, Ohio is taking a step-by-step approach to expanding passenger rail service. First the state would introduce limited stop, 79 mph service linking Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland with three trains in the morning and three trains at night. More trains, and possibly more station stops, would be added as more people ride the trains. As ridership grows, more improvements would be made to introduce up to 110 mph rail service in the 3C corridor and elsewhere throughout the state. Do you support this step-by-step approach? (pick one) yes/no/no opinion"

 

^ That question is poorly worded. People probably thought "79 mph service" meant 79 mph average service.

 

Yes... and the wording was designed to elicit a positive response. Such is often the case with surveys, particularly when there's a conflict of interest involved. Here we have ODOT casting its own plan in the best possible light then asking for approval. Who's going to say no to that statement as worded? It describes improvement, and everybody likes improvement. It doesn't ask whether the incremental approach would be preferable to pursuing high speed service, or preferable to doing nothing. It doesn't ask whether initiating 3C service would be preferable to upgrading existing service, or preferable to pursuing other new routes. It's cast as all or nothing, or way or the highway, from the unnecessary first sentence to the limited answer choices.

 

The wording of the question not withstanding, a vast majority of respondents supported the incremental approach.  Thiose who did not had the option of voting no.

 

But whether or not more people would favor high-peed rail has been rendered moot by the politicval reality of a Governor and legislative majority who have made it clear they are against passenger rail in any form and are even less interested in considering the options you suggest.

 

I'm not suggesting you shouldn't advocate for such options, but you will do so in a decidedly anti-passenger rail political atmosphere. 

Most 3C opponents I encountered were not even a little bit anti-rail, nor did they take orders from Republicans, but they cited speed as the overwhelming factor in their assessment of the project.

I would agree with this, but a true high speed plan would cost billions and I think the price tag would doom the plan. (As it has in the past when HSR was pushed for in Ohio.)

 

Exactly. We've been there and done that ad nauseum

Most 3C opponents I encountered were not even a little bit anti-rail, nor did they take orders from Republicans, but they cited speed as the overwhelming factor in their assessment of the project.

I would agree with this, but a true high speed plan would cost billions and I think the price tag would doom the plan. (As it has in the past when HSR was pushed for in Ohio.)

 

 

Exactly. We've been there and done that ad nauseum

Ergo, stop touting HSR as the end all of rail. Normal rail is great and we have to articulate how rail is worthwhile even when it isn't HSR. Obama missed a golden opportunity to pull an Eisenhower for rail.

 

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

 

that last link prompts you for a login ID and password now. I'm presuming that was not previously the case?

 

No, it wasn't. You might try finding it in cache memory by Googling it.

 

I remember encountering a password prompt at one of the ODOT rail pages, and I just his Esc or cancel or something, then got right in.

The DDN op-ed was pitching private-sector (or a public-private joint venture concept) for 3-C

 

If there’s any state where private investment might happen, some say, it’s here.

 

Certainly chambers of commerce and other business organizations like the idea of having passenger service to and from their cities. And developers showed during the fight about 3C that they were eager to site projects at train stations.

 

This is being considered up in wesern Mass.  A private freight rail owner is thinking about starting passenger service from the Berkshires down to a Metro North terminus, and is paying for the feasibility study.  The understanding is that the station development and construction would be born by the local municipalities.  So this would be an interesting example of local governments partenering with a short-line owner (or do we call this regional rail?) to get passenger service established.

 

@@@@

 

I'm leaning toward the above comments that improved bus service might be more realistic from a cost and ease-of-implemnetation POV, since there is a demand.  Those Chinatown busses seem to be pretty popular and are apparently in better condition or are better rides than Greyhound.

 

Seems there is a lot of denial here that 3-C is dead.  I'm wondering why this thread isn't being moved to the failed or never-started projects subforum.

 

 

 

 

 

that last link prompts you for a login ID and password now. I'm presuming that was not previously the case?

 

No, it wasn't. You might try finding it in cache memory by Googling it.

 

I remember encountering a password prompt at one of the ODOT rail pages, and I just his Esc or cancel or something, then got right in.

 

The google cache is from 12/14, so it still works. However, if you click on the link at the top for Strickland's response to Kasich to stop progress on the train, it takes you to the Kasich for Governor website.

The DDN op-ed was pitching private-sector (or a public-private joint venture concept) for 3-C

 

I'm leaning toward the above comments that improved bus service might be more realistic from a cost and ease-of-implemnetation POV, since there is a demand.  Those Chinatown busses seem to be pretty popular and are apparently in better condition or are better rides than Greyhound.

 

 

On a bus, I am a cow. On a train I am a man.

Seems there is a lot of denial here that 3-C is dead.  I'm wondering why this thread isn't being moved to the failed or never-started projects subforum.

 

 

Jeff, I have been at this for 27 years and have seen 3C "die" seven times and each time we get a little closer to our goal. Never were we so close to construction until this last time. A transportation project dies only after its planning documentation shelf life has expired. And that shelf life is about five years. So technically, 3C has never died in my term of involvement.

 

Stay tuned. It is probably going to come back sooner than you may think.

The DDN op-ed was pitching private-sector (or a public-private joint venture concept) for 3-C

 

Ironically, that is what 3-C was. By some estimates, as much as $3 billion in private development would have followed the $400 million invested by the Feds. Forest City, alone, had planned hundreds of millions of dollars in development. Economists (and some smart investors like Ray Kroc), have recognized, for decade, that private developent follows transportation.

 

But what do we expect most citizens to know when American school children don't even rank in the top 10 most educated in the world?

 

Don't expect the private sector to make any significant commitments when the American voters can't. It takes years and expensive studies, permits, etc., to get a project to groundbreaking.

 

It takes far less time to replace a politician and with him or her, a consistent vision for the future.

 

HL Mencken was talking about the US Presidency but he could have just as easily been referring to Ohio politics:

 

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by the force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre - the man who can most easily disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

 

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great a glorious day the plan folks of the the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

 

Here's another ideal network......

______________

 

 

January 11, 2011

 

In This Update:

 

Major new America 2050 Study Identifies Most Promising Rail Corridors in the Country 

 

  New America 2050 Report: High-Speed Rail in America   

 

A new study released today by America 2050 identifies the high-speed rail corridors with the greatest potential to attract ridership in each of the nation's megaregions.  Corridors connecting populous regions with large job centers, rail transit networks, and existing air markets scored best. The study also recommends that the federal government adopt a quantitative approach to evaluating future investment in high-speed rail.

 

Download the press release: http://www.america2050.org/upload/2011/01/HSR%20in%20America_NEWS%20RELEASE%20Jan%202011.pdf

 

The 56-page study, entitled, "High-Speed Rail in America," cites ridership potential as the number one factor in determining if a corridor is suitable for investment, identifies the specific conditions that generate ridership demand, and scores each corridor according to strength in those areas.  The top performing corridors in each region determined to have the greatest potential demand for high-speed rail ridership include corridors such as: New York-Washington, DC; Chicago-Milwaukee; Los Angeles-San Diego; Tampa (via Orlando) to Miami; Dallas-Houston; Atlanta-Birmingham; Portland-Seattle; and Denver-Pueblo.

 

You can download the full report below, or in sections. You can comment on the report online at www.America2050.org.

 

 

About America 2050

America 2050 is a national initiative to develop an infrastructure plan for the United States that will position America for equitable, sustainable and prosperous economic growth. We are developing strategies that anticipate the challenges of rapid population growth, climate change, mobility, and ensuring national prosperity in a changing global economy.

 

A major focus of America 2050 is the emergence of megaregions – large networks of metropolitan areas, where most of America’s growth by mid-century will take place – and how to organize infrastructure investments, environmental protection, and economic opportunities for all at this new scale.

 

America 2050 includes a network of partners in megaregions across the country developing long-range strategies for sustainable growth and prosperity. For more information, visit our website at www.America2050.org.

+1 for the Mencken quote.

 

Reminded me of this other one by him:

 

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -HL Mencken

Hiawatha seen as prime candidate for high-speed upgrade

Milwaukee-Chicago rail line set a record for ridership in 2010

By Larry Sandler of the Journal Sentinel

Jan. 15, 2011

 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/113828999.html

 

 

The train to Madison may be dead, but the train to Chicago is as alive as ever.

 

Ridership on Amtrak's Milwaukee-to-Chicago Hiawatha line has doubled in the past eight years, hitting a record 792,848 in 2010. And a new study rates the Hiawatha route as one of the nation's most promising prospects for an upgrade to high-speed rail.

 

Gov. Scott Walker has said little about his plans for the Hiawatha. But the Milwaukee-area business community strongly supports the route. Just days before the federal government yanked nearly all of the $810 million allocated for a Milwaukee-to-Madison line, the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce offered Walker a plan to shift most of the cash to the Hiawatha and other existing rail service.

 

More at link posted above:

No link but I heard a recent poll about Ohio and its future showed the majority of the state supported killing 3C. Take it for what it is worth.

 

I got you covered.

 

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1550

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/01/19/ohioans-back-kasich-killing-passenger-rail-fear-higher-taxes/

 

"By 48 percent to 42 percent, Ohioans support Kasich’s decision to kill passenger rail between Cincinnati and Ohio’s other major cities, returning $400 million to the federal government;"

For the amount of bad information I heard people using I'm surprised it was that close.

Even bad information can inlfuence public opinion.  A poll doesn't always mean those polled are an "informed" public.

Especially when the opposition was successful in lying about "39 mph" and that 3C's operating cost would come from the general fund and had anything to do with the state's $8 billion deficit.