43 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

It’s bonkers that right now you can’t take a train from Cleveland to Toronto.

 

Honestly even just Buffalo - when I was without a car this summer I debated taking the train back and hanging out in blo/catching a ride, that trip was something like 9 hours (3hr train ride to Depew, and then waiting for the Toronto train that goes through Buffalo's Exchange St. Station). I know it's not easy to bake in a downtown Buffalo stop w/the way things currently are but man, it's rough.

 

Ope- Brian already went that direction, that's what I get for posting at the top of the page/not diving in.

Edited December 11, 20231 yr by GISguy

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

I was thinking extending to Buffalo since it is better served than Pitt. Buffalo would give more frequent NYC service, plus Toronto and Niagara Falls, plus all of upstate NY. 

 

I favor Pittsburgh because Pittsburgh is a larger metro and there there are more travel synergies between Cleveland and Pittsburgh as well as Detroit to Pittsburgh. I get the connections, but I'd rather have some 3C trains go to Buffalo and Toronto. Something about traveling in straight lines is more advantageous. I also like the X-shaped hub at Cleveland. To me, Detroit to Buffalo through the USA is a long U-shaped route, although avoiding two border crossings has its value. If we had hourly train service (or better) like the civilized world, I'd definitely run some that way.

 

This was at the bottom of the previous page. But this quote reminds me that the ORDC probably isn't the organization to do the job....

 

Updated the article with more quotes, including the first public comment from the state commission charged with the responsibility of developing passenger rail....

 

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/12/05/amtrak-expansions-to-cleveland-win-funding/

 

2 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

I favor Pittsburgh because Pittsburgh is a larger metro and there there are more travel synergies between Cleveland and Pittsburgh as well as Detroit to Pittsburgh. I get the connections, but I'd rather have some 3C trains go to Buffalo and Toronto. Something about traveling in straight lines is more advantageous. I also like the X-shaped hub at Cleveland. To me, Detroit to Buffalo through the USA is a long U-shaped route, although avoiding two border crossings has its value. If we had hourly train service (or better) like the civilized world, I'd definitely run some that way.

 

This was at the bottom of the previous page. But this quote reminds me that the ORDC probably isn't the organization to do the job....

 

Updated the article with more quotes, including the first public comment from the state commission charged with the responsibility of developing passenger rail....

 

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/12/05/amtrak-expansions-to-cleveland-win-funding/

 

Fully agree - extending 3C+D to Buffalo (and Louisville!) makes more sense from a network perspective. If 3C+D doesn’t happen and Det-TOL-CLE does, I’d rather have the latter extend to Buff than Pitt. 
 

And on the other part - it’s just downright scary that ORDC needs to be part of this whole thing. 

On 10/28/2023 at 6:16 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

Amtrak generally only proposes routes on existing, well maintained track. Here’s a couple maps @KJP posted. Notice that the only maintained, direct route from Columbus to Pitt is via Newark, Coshocton, Uhrichsville, and Steubenville. Even those aren’t the highest quality track. Midwest Connect would probably cost quite a bit more than the other Ohio proposed routes to get quality service up and running. It is cool to think about how a Cleveland Akron Canton service could continue on and connect to the Midwest Connect route to get to Columbus. 

 

 

I was just thinking about this. Has anyone (on this forum or otherwise) given any serious thought about the precise routing of this route?

 

Ideally this route would start in Cleveland, and stop in downtown Akron, Canton, the Akron/Canton Airport, and New Philadelphia, but the existing track doesn't seem to be very friendly to this alignment. The ideal track through the heart of downtown Akron doesn't go on to Canton, and, and quite frankly any routing through Canton seems difficult and less straightforward than I would like. It looks to be possible, but it seems like tradeoffs are required if you have to stick to existing track, with the two main options are either a suboptimal Akron station location, or opting for a stop in Massilon instead of Canton. Canton certainly seems preferable, but the more simple routing through Massillon could possibly be worth it. I don't know what the time difference would work out to. 

 

I'm just wondering if anyone smarter than me has considered this routing and what they propose. 

10 hours ago, Ethan said:

The article claims a "just over" 3 hour trip time from Detroit to Cleveland. That's very competitive with driving, which is just under three hours without stops or traffic. With all the focus on 3C+D, this may be slipping under the radar. 

 

The old New York Central Mercuries were scheduled for 2 hours 50 minutes, stopping only at Toledo.  So that's a pretty good time. 

2 hours ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

It would have been nice if KY had proposed a CIN-LOU line. That way you could run 3C trains through CUT.

 

Louisville's MPO did submit that as one of their requests but it did not make it.

On 12/10/2023 at 9:58 AM, Boomerang_Brian said:

 “Not a single Ohio city to Chicago city-pair made it into the top 100 intercity travel markets.”

Does that include both highway and airline travel?  I think Chicago is just far enough that most Ohioans would fly rather than drive to Chicago.  But if you're considering alternative modes of transportation, like whether it would be a good idea to add a high speed rail line, you should consider not just how many cars that would pull off the road, but also how many people would take the train rather than fly (and deal with TSA).

12 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Does that include both highway and airline travel?  I think Chicago is just far enough that most Ohioans would fly rather than drive to Chicago.  But if you're considering alternative modes of transportation, like whether it would be a good idea to add a high speed rail line, you should consider not just how many cars that would pull off the road, but also how many people would take the train rather than fly (and deal with TSA).

I believe the info @KJP posted and I reposted was total city pair trips for all transportation modes. I believe that a connecting flight through Chicago would NOT be recorded as a Chicago trip in that data; rather, it is looking at origins to destination trips. 
 

I continue to look for more recent trip info, but I’ve found it harder to nail down than I expected. 

I believe that's correct

Nice post by the City Manager....

 

Michelle Crandall

City Manager at City of Hilliard, Ohio, USA

 

Another step closer to Amtrak service in Central Ohio! The City of Hilliard, Ohio USA is working with AECOM to complete a preliminary study for a convenient station location adjacent to our I-270 exit.

What an exciting opportunity to someday be a short train ride away from Cleveland, Dayton, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh & Chicago and eventually regional commuter services!

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2023/12/08/amtrak-columbus-expansion-workfroce-housing-fundin.html

As an Ohioan I know to never get my hopes up, but something about this project just feels different this time.

 

It no longer feels like a long-shot, there seems to just be a lot more support from a much more diverse group of people. The timing seems better this time, with a stronger economy and overall greater interest in alternatives to driving, especially from younger people. Maybe it also helps that there are multiple rail projects in the works for Ohio - another so-called "fiscal conservative" can make a big show of canceling one of the projects, but it wouldn't be our only shot at getting something.

 

When Kasich killed this last time, I was pretty annoyed. I was making the trip from Cincinnati to Cleveland every few months for my then-job, downtown-to-downtown, and found the drive to be absolutely dreadful. Now that I live in Central Ohio, I'm not quite as excited about the 3C+D specifically. I still really want to see it happen and think it will be great, but both I and my Cincinnati family live too far from either of the stations, and too far from public transit, to make it an especially practical alternative for every visit. Taking a train from here to Chicago though sounds amazing.

 

When we begin to invest in public infrastructure in a new way and a new location, it affects people's decisions on where to invest, work and live. Private capital follows public capital. When we develop passenger rail into something special (like hourly service at 90-125 mph speeds with grand stations incorporating some basic services), it changes where people will want to work, live and spend money which will also change the private investors' approach as well. We don't have a lot of examples yet of this in the USA but where we do (Northeast Corridor, Miami-West Palm Brightline corridor, Empire Corridor south of Schenectady, Keystone East, Pacific Surfliner, etc), the private investment is evident. So what I'm saying is that, if we develop these types of services to link Ohio's biggest cities, it will change where many of us live/work/play and further bolster the constituency for more infrastructure investment. And that's what creates the supportive land-use, market and political constituency for true high-speed rail.

 

Brightline's new Aventura, FL station

 

Michigan Avenue crossing at Cocoa, FL (shared Brightline passenger-Florida East Coast freight RR corridor with new tracks and signal systems added although passenger trains are restricted to 90 mph here but allowed 110-125 mph elsewhere)

 

One of my shots from and of the Brightline station in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Lots of advertising around downtown of Brightline, including partnerships with hotels and tourist sites. The train has already become part of South Florida's human ecosystem.

Pittsburgh editorial discusses rail expansion to the west of the Steel City into Ohio...

 

Editorial: Amtrak's federal boost is a turning point for Pa. transportation

https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2023/12/11/amtrak-federal-funding-ohio-feasibility-studies/stories/202312110007

 

 

 

CLE dot com coverage on the Amtrak 3C+D

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/01/amtrak-expansion-in-ohio-what-comes-next-and-how-soon-might-we-be-taking-the-train-to-columbus.html

 

I’m very curious who at Amtrak gave Susan Glaser the below projection, as it doesn’t line up with anything I’ve heard elsewhere. EG, Steven Gardner has been quoted saying it would only cost $100M (which is completely inaccurate - the reality is for solid service we’re probably going to need to spend $400-600M).

“According to Amtrak, the capital investment to establish service on the 3C+D route is an estimated $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion.

Amtrak estimates a projected ridership of 385,000 one-way trips in 2035, based on three round-trip trains per day. The trips would generate an estimated $10 million in revenue for the line, with a yearly operating cost of between $26 million and $35 million – leaving an operating deficit of $16 million to $25 million.”

 If they spend $1.2B, that would likely result in excellent service and would be much faster than the time numbers quoted elsewhere in the article - specifically, 5:40 from CLE to Cincy. 

19 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

CLE dot com coverage on the Amtrak 3C+D

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/01/amtrak-expansion-in-ohio-what-comes-next-and-how-soon-might-we-be-taking-the-train-to-columbus.html

 

I’m very curious who at Amtrak gave Susan Glaser the below projection, as it doesn’t line up with anything I’ve heard elsewhere. EG, Steven Gardner has been quoted saying it would only cost $100M (which is completely inaccurate - the reality is for solid service we’re probably going to need to spend $400-600M).

“According to Amtrak, the capital investment to establish service on the 3C+D route is an estimated $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion.

Amtrak estimates a projected ridership of 385,000 one-way trips in 2035, based on three round-trip trains per day. The trips would generate an estimated $10 million in revenue for the line, with a yearly operating cost of between $26 million and $35 million – leaving an operating deficit of $16 million to $25 million.”

 If they spend $1.2B, that would likely result in excellent service and would be much faster than the time numbers quoted elsewhere in the article - specifically, 5:40 from CLE to Cincy. 

All I know is that if it was expected to be profitable, we would already have rail service. 

38 minutes ago, TMart said:

All I know is that if it was expected to be profitable, we would already have rail service. 

What is the point of this comment? Very few transportation systems are profitable; we invest in them because of the economic activity they generate. (Or in some cases just because we collectively think it’s worth it.) When was the last time I-71 turned a profit?

It's been said plenty, but transportation is the lubricant that makes the economy run. Roads and airlines are government subsidized, trains are too. 

Infrastructure ownership/capital financing/maintenance/operation/insurance/traffic management/security

 

Passenger rail: mostly private

Its competition: mostly public

 

Vehicle ownership/capital financing/maintenance/operation/insurance/security

 

Passenger rail: mostly public

Its competition: mostly private

 

The reversal of roles makes a huge difference in how easily passenger rail's competition is usually only responsible for unit operating costs and not fixed costs, thus externalizing most of its costs (infrastructure) onto taxpayers. Rail's competition can more quickly respond to the market and grow. Or it can shrink and actually save money during downturns and still have the infrastructure remain in good quality when it's time to grow again. It remains a conscious decision (including by the backward railroads themselves), in the USA to saddle railroads with huge fixed costs.

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

What is the point of this comment? Very few transportation systems are profitable; we invest in them because of the economic activity they generate. (Or in some cases just because we collectively think it’s worth it.) When was the last time I-71 turned a profit?

The point is, another program the tax-payers have to fund that doesn't serve the vast majority of people paying for it, isn't going to be very popular. We voted passenger rail service down in the past. In this part of the country, we are automobile-focused. With a car, we can drive wherever we want, whenever we want. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a passenger rail system like we enjoyed when we lived in Germany, but we are a very different society. We don't have the kind of density that makes rail work in the northeast corridor. I hope to see it happen, but I fear it will become another black hole sucking up our taxes. In order to sell something like this, the majority will need to see how they will benefit from it. I just don't think a lot of people do.  

Edited January 5, 20241 yr by TMart

39 minutes ago, TMart said:

The point is, another program the tax-payers have to fund that doesn't serve the vast majority of people paying for it, isn't going to be very popular.

Definitely a problem.

40 minutes ago, TMart said:

In this part of the country, we are automobile-focused. With a car, we can drive wherever we want, whenever we want. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a passenger rail system like we enjoyed when we lived in Germany, but we are a very different society. We don't have the kind of density that makes rail work in the northeast corridor.

While Ohio is currently designed almost exclusively for the car, Ohio once had an extremely extensive rail network.  https://www.loc.gov/item/98688545/  It's really remarkable what we've lost/given up.  And @KJP has posted before about how the midwest US's density really isn't that lower than France, which has a better rail network than we do.
 

46 minutes ago, TMart said:

 I hope to see it happen, but I fear it will become another black hole sucking up our taxes. In order to sell something like this, the majority will need to see how they will benefit from it. I just don't think a lot of people do.  

Car culture is not the most efficient use of our tax dollars either -- taxpayers are paying for the roadways, whether they use them or not.  And we keep increasing the number of lane-miles of roadways that need maintaining and not increasing the maintenance budget.  Hence the D grade on our bridges and frequent complaints about potholes, and maintenance deficiencies seem most likely to multiply over the years as a result.

 

The fact that Ohio once had a rail network nearly as comprehensive as our road network today, and the success of rail in other countries with equal density to Ohio, suggests that we could support a much more extensive rail network than we have now (starting with the 3C+D) if we would diversify our transportation spending.  Just getting 20% or 30% of the cars off the road would increase safety and reduce maintenance costs.

The point is.... the public benefit resulting from a well-designed passenger rail service exceeds the public investment in it.

 

Fear is the enemy of progress. All growth requires risk. Western civilization used to not be so afraid of taking risks. Not so coincidentally, we were more successful then.

 

A revenue stream that I think a lot of these transportation project are missing is tax revenue from ToD. New development around stations should have their property taxes earmarked for the transit/rail service that is nearby. It's a symbiotic relationship.

On 12/11/2023 at 10:28 AM, Boomerang_Brian said:

Fully agree - extending 3C+D to Buffalo (and Louisville!) makes more sense from a network perspective. If 3C+D doesn’t happen and Det-TOL-CLE does, I’d rather have the latter extend to Buff than Pitt. 
 

And on the other part - it’s just downright scary that ORDC needs to be part of this whole thing. 

 

oh hekkers yeah to that. buffalo and louisville are natural extensions to the trans-ohio route. and bonus you could get cvg in that mix too. in the downtime there could be added runs back and forth to cinci.

Cincinnati mentioned:

 

 

6 minutes ago, Dev said:

Cincinnati mentioned:

 

 

 

 

The problem with HSR (or really any rail upgrades) between Chicago and Cincinnati is that it would benefit Indianapolis much more than Cincinnati.  Building a line that could get passengers from CUT to the Chicago loop in 120 minutes is technically possible, but the more robust the construction, the shorter the trip that Indianapolis would enjoy, and so the greater their advantage. 

 

What's crazy (I'm thinking like a lawyer/politician) is that this issue could be reduced by writing something into the HSR bill that allows Cincinnati-Chicago express trains to skip Indianapolis and all local stops but prevent Indianapolis from having any express runs into the loop. 

 

 

 

 

But Cincinnatians are nuts about Indy -- especially the downtown. 

Why would it matter if it benefits Indianapolis more? Why would you eliminate a stop? By that logic the Eurostar line from London to Amsterdam benefits Brussels more because it happens to be between the two cities. Trains would only stop for 5 minutes at most on a through route. I'd argue being at the end of the line would be a bigger benefit because you can actually leave the train.

Edited January 9, 20241 yr by JaceTheAce41

who cares if Indy gets more benefit from a Cincinnati-Chicago HSR line than Cincinnati gets? It's hard enough to get any rail. Pinning Indy against Cincy is really stupid.

11 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

The problem with HSR (or really any rail upgrades) between Chicago and Cincinnati is that it would benefit Indianapolis much more than Cincinnati.  Building a line that could get passengers from CUT to the Chicago loop in 120 minutes is technically possible, but the more robust the construction, the shorter the trip that Indianapolis would enjoy, and so the greater their advantage. 

 

What's crazy (I'm thinking like a lawyer/politician) is that this issue could be reduced by writing something into the HSR bill that allows Cincinnati-Chicago express trains to skip Indianapolis and all local stops but prevent Indianapolis from having any express runs into the loop.

Cincy to Chicago is in the sweet spot of distance between city pairs for HSR and stops have a marginal increase in time. Having a HSR non-stop service from Cincy to Chicago would be nice but isn't a strict requirement to make it very, very competitive to driving or flying. They also have to build out the service first, which would include all the existing stops, before creating a non-stop route.

In any case, this isn't some competition. If the Cardinal is running at 125 MPH from Indy to Chicago, that would be awesome for Cincy. That isn't a problem.

8 minutes ago, Dev said:

Cincy to Chicago is in the sweet spot of distance between city pairs for HSR and stops have a marginal increase in time. Having a HSR non-stop service from Cincy to Chicago would be nice but isn't a strict requirement to make it very, very competitive to driving or flying. They also have to build out the service first, which would include all the existing stops, before creating a non-stop route.

In any case, this isn't some competition. If the Cardinal is running at 125 MPH from Indy to Chicago, that would be awesome for Cincy. That isn't a problem.

The problem for Cincinnati is that the expense of building HSR through Indy is borne almost exclusively by the State of Indiana. Ohio is responsible for perhaps a dozen or so miles into Hamilton County. It's not such a hard sell in Indiana to get HSR to Indy, but to build to Cincinnati's doorstep is too much for Hoosier lawmakers. 

24 minutes ago, westerninterloper said:

The problem for Cincinnati is that the expense of building HSR through Indy is borne almost exclusively by the State of Indiana. Ohio is responsible for perhaps a dozen or so miles into Hamilton County. It's not such a hard sell in Indiana to get HSR to Indy, but to build to Cincinnati's doorstep is too much for Hoosier lawmakers. 

And therin lies the problem with relying on a state driven process.

1 hour ago, ryanlammi said:

who cares if Indy gets more benefit from a Cincinnati-Chicago HSR line than Cincinnati gets? It's hard enough to get any rail. Pinning Indy against Cincy is really stupid.

Agree 100% Let's get something running and not worry about the fine points.

I hope that in my lifetime, we have a transformative transportation program similar to the Interstate Highway acts that builds HSR to most major cities via the already existing interstate highway system. Sure, HSR from NY to LA doesn't make sense but you could build out a hub and spoke system to most of the country.

4 minutes ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

I hope that in my lifetime, we have a transformative transportation program similar to the Interstate Highway acts that builds HSR to most major cities via the already existing interstate highway system. Sure, HSR from NY to LA doesn't make sense but you could build out a hub and spoke system to most of the country.

It would definitely cut down on the airline clusterf*&ks if connections were made by rail rather than short flights. 

You could even make a cruise-style vacation and just do sightseeing on every major stop along the way.

9 hours ago, Dev said:

In any case, this isn't some competition.

 

 

It absolutely is, and that's why there is such fierce opposition to investments that favor one municipality and state over the other. 

 

For example, San Jose is the big winner in California HSR.  Not only will there be many more trains between San Jose and LA than between San Francisco and LA, it will be upwards of an hour closer to LA.  This is because rail on the peninsula will average under 100mph and the already-built shell of the Transbay Terminal only has the capacity for four HSR trains per hour.  When San Francisco interests saw that service to DTSF was going to become an afterthought in the statewide system, they went on the warpath.  Meanwhile, CAHSR will build a high speed entrance into Los Angeles for Las Vegas.  Las Vegas is in low-tax Nevada, meaning CAHSR will encourage more people and businesses to decamp from California.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Lazarus said:

It absolutely is, and that's why there is such fierce opposition to investments that favor one municipality and state over the other. 

 

For example, San Jose is the big winner in California HSR.  Not only will there be many more trains between San Jose and LA than between San Francisco and LA, it will be upwards of an hour closer to LA.  This is because rail on the peninsula will average under 100mph and the already-built shell of the Transbay Terminal only has the capacity for four HSR trains per hour.  When San Francisco interests saw that service to DTSF was going to become an afterthought in the statewide system, they went on the warpath.  Meanwhile, CAHSR will build a high speed entrance into Los Angeles for Las Vegas.  Las Vegas is in low-tax Nevada, meaning CAHSR will encourage more people and businesses to decamp from California.

CAHSR is not going to encourage people to leave California. The high cost of living is what is doing that, and will continue to do that. If anything, it encourages people and businesses to stay, as it creates an expense reduction over time.

 

You have to remember that this is part of a larger network. So one city pairing getting better service isn't bad for everyone else. Yes there will be selfish and impatient people who will complain they didn't get that service instead, but every project has an additive effect helps the region, state, nation overall.

It's not a contest but sure, I'll bite. 

The line between SF and SJ has already benefitted from CA HSR with the electrification of the corridor between the two cities. Speeds are also going to increase to 100 mph with the addition of the new Stadler EMUs and until the Salesforce transit center opens, the SF stop will be at a station that could conceivably have more capacity. 

 

Your comment about people leaving CA for NV is just fearmongering with a sprinkle of tired GOP anti-CA talking points. Brightline West is a good thing and connectivity is a good thing. What's the alternative? Not build it? Rely on fossil fuel spewing cars? CA HSR is a transformative infrastructure project that has had to suffer a decade of delays politicing and sabotage and once Phase I is built, people will wonder how they ever lived without it.

 

CA HSR will allow some Californians to live in the less-expensive Central Valley but commute into LA or the Bay Area in a relatively short time. 

 

Back to Ohio. I'm hoping that once the 3C line opens that plans are put in place to increase speeds on the line. While I'd love a fully electrified route, something like Brightline or Lincoln Service would be a game changer for Ohio.

Edited January 10, 20241 yr by JaceTheAce41

I hear a lot of businesses in Ohio are moving to Portsmouth to get their taxes down

3 hours ago, Dev said:

CAHSR is not going to encourage people to leave California.

 

The reason why more Californians haven't moved to Reno or Las Vegas in the past is because those cities were always very small AND transportation links between them and California were difficult. 

 

The Brightline HSR will suck until CAHSR builds the 20+ mile tunnel between Burbank and Palmdale.  After that, Las Vegas trains will have a high speed entrance into LA Union Station. 

 

It's going to motivate individuals and those with small businesses to decamp in a way that doesn't exist now. 

3 hours ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

 What's the alternative? Not build it?

 

There are endless examples throughout US history of logical things not being built in order for one interest to maintain an advantage over another.  CAHSR and the Las Vegas connection is one example.  There will be more. 

 

Even if the federal government were to shower the Lower 48 with $1 trillion to build high-speed passenger rail that connects all metros of 1 million or more, the lines would come to advantage some localities over others, and so those doomed to decades of relative decline would oppose it.  

 

 

You seem like a cheerful person. I bet you're a ton of fun at parties.

2 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

The reason why more Californians haven't moved to Reno or Las Vegas in the past is because those cities were always very small AND transportation links between them and California were difficult. 

 

The Brightline HSR will suck until CAHSR builds the 20+ mile tunnel between Burbank and Palmdale.  After that, Las Vegas trains will have a high speed entrance into LA Union Station. 

 

It's going to motivate individuals and those with small businesses to decamp in a way that doesn't exist now. 

 

So I'm giving up my built local customer base and starting over because of taxation? Am I a sadist?

 

have you heard how much you can save in taxes with an annuity instead of index funds

Ohio mentioned (finally):

 

43 minutes ago, Dev said:

Ohio mentioned (finally):

 

Very discouraging that Rail Mag has 3C+D rated as 30th most likely to happen (out of the 69 Corridor ID grants). And it seems that’s the highest of the 4 that would impact Ohio! It’s important for all of us to keep pushing our electeds on this if we want it to happen. (It’s too bad isn’t really up to Amtrak, because  I know they want to do 3C&D and CLE-Toledo-Detroit.)

3CD Corridor ranks #30??? Are they serious??? This should be thrown in the round file, along with all those stories about Cleveland being such a horrible place.

 

<Sarcasm On>

 

Why yes, yes I can see why the Front Range Corridor would be ranked ahead of the 3CD Corridor. Just look at those Colossi at each end!

 

<Sarcasm OFF>

Edited January 10, 20241 yr by neony

1 hour ago, neony said:

3CD Corridor ranks #30??? Are they serious??? This should be thrown in the round file, along with all those stories about Cleveland being such a horrible place.

 

<Sarcasm On>

 

Why yes, yes I can see why the Front Range Corridor would be ranked ahead of the 3CD Corridor. Just look at those Colossi at each end!

 

<Sarcasm OFF>

The ranking is on likelihood of it happening, not the business case. The latter would be much higher. With Ohio screwing up the last 3C+D effort and ORDC's lack of enthusiasm, the ranking is justifiable. The higher "ranked" corridors are mostly in states that have been much more supportive of passenger rail efforts.

Ohio is ranked so low because it's Ohio. When he says "Will Ohio finally step up with matching funds? Will 'Ohioans really love their cars' continue to be a cop-out? Feds will be very cautious with real funding here." It's because Ohio has earned the "Lucy reputation" -- as in Lucy from the Peanuts cartoons who pulled the football away seconds before Charlie Brown tried to kick it. After a while, you just don't want to play with Lucy anymore.

 

7 hours ago, GCrites said:

have you heard how much you can save in taxes with an annuity instead of index funds

 

California has both a state income tax and a state capital gains tax.  Nevada has neither, and it makes a big difference for high earners.  The Las Vegas metro area has tripled in size from 1 million to 3 million residents since the mid-1990s. 

What are property taxes in Nevada like? People tend to ignore high property taxes while being laser focused on income taxes. Especially people from Ohio which doesn't have property tax on things like cars and boats unlike Kentucky and West Virginia while having extremely high property taxes on housing. Especially in Franklin County which has grown out of control despite insane property taxes.

 

Like literally no one knows that the Cincinnati city property tax rollback existed from 2000 to 2023 except you, landlords, developers and people in city government. $100,000 gone for the average homeowner in that time that everyone else in other cities paid but who cares since radio hosts and Podcasters can't stop hammering federal wage taxes for guys who fix broken stuff who went from making $50k in the 90s to making $160k today.

Edited January 11, 20241 yr by GCrites