Louisville to Chicago - Kentucky Cardinal, 1999-2003

 

Two-thirds of this route, the Indianapolis-Chicago leg, still operates.

 

That is the Hoosier State, which began operations in 1980. The Kentucky Cardinal was a route from Louisville to Chicago via Indy. Two different routes.

And that's not what I stated in my original request. State funded routes in a time when we are billion or so in debt, on a line that will most likely not live up to its promises? We were all hoping for something more, and what we got was a political minimum, done to appease the Democratic majority and Stickland, who is facing reelection. If you don't believe politics isn't involved in this, then you are wearing your rose colored glasses for far too long.

 

I'm not wearing rose-colored glasses.  I have been involved in passenger rail advocacy in Ohio for about a dozen years.  I know what ORDC has been doing, how they've been doing it, and why they are taking the approach that they are.  As I said, it doesn't matter how the state got the money, because what they asked for is pretty much what they've been wanting to do all along-- an incremental start-up on the 3-C, then improve it from there. 

 

If you're going to spend money on something in times like this, you do it on things that are going to have an economic payback.  Ohio's plan is to mimick the successes of other states which have all seen positive economic returns on their 40-50 mph average speed corridors.  Most are improving the speeds and the economic returns keep coming. 

And as several of us have stated, before essentially being shouted down, we believe that this "incremental" approach will fail. And that the whole CUT debacle will be an instrumental part of that failure.

... there are rail proposals that have been built that have failed ...

 

You keep making vague references to failed systems, but have yet to identify a single one. I'm not saying there are none, but I can't take your word for it without any evidence.

I made one such instance above, please go up and read. Then do a general query for that specific line. I've also made one reference to another line a few pages back.

^ Sorry -- I missed that one above. Still, you offered to list the failures -- plural -- and a couple posts asked for the list. One specialized example does not constitute a list. Still waiting.

Fundamentally, 3C has to be about connecting Columbus to the broader network. It is the fastest growing region in the state. It is the region that is keeping the state data from looking like more like Michigan in terms of growth rates. The question is how, if we can't get the Ft. Wayne/Lima/Pittsburgh line going (which I actually think would be best), then we've gotta connect the capital to the main east-west lines somehow. If you tied Cbus to either of the C's w/out connecting it to the other then the uproar on here and elsewhere would be even more deafening. While agree with Civvik's description of the state, that doesn't really answer the problem of Columbus. A lot of the Clevelanders seem to be focus on their connection to Cbus, while the Cincy folks are worried about the same darn thing - maybe if we called the CC+CC everyone would be happy. Like Cincinnatians and Clevelanders are going to be willing to share a train car anyway.

This is what I meant by "cohesive". I agree that Ohio's plan is comprehensive, but if it were cohesive it would withstand scrutiny and regional bickering more than this.

 

And by Ohio's metros being "uncomfortably close" I mean that they are more economically competitive than synergistic, and are at transitional distances of 60-100 miles which makes rail attractive at the longer distance but not so much at the shorter end. For example, I think Columbus-Cleveland is probably competitive for rail, but this Cincy-Middletown-Dayton-Springfield-Columbus thing really worries me.

 

It is absolutely true that often people don't know what's good for them, or what they want, because they are uninformed or have special prejudices. I think this is almost always true for metropolitan mass transit, and the last twenty years of data for light rail almost always exceeds projections. BUT inter-city rail is a different animal. Let me explain what I mean by that, based on my own experience planning these systems:

 

When you sell light rail or streetcar, you are selling a whole shift in lifestyle, in the way people think about, and live in, their environment. You are selling *access* more than mobility: new land use patterns, new densities. When you sell inter-city rail, you are just selling mobility. You are just competing directly with cars and planes, and the only game in town is speed and efficiency.

 

 

 

 

Columbus Dispatch reverses course

 

Handout is off track

Editorial: Money for rail deepens federal debt, won't help with Ohio's urgent needs

Sunday, January 31, 2010 3:11 AM

 

The Obama administration and Congress are sending a trainload of $8 billion to Ohio and various other states to spur rail development, but this is a problematic gift. This is money the federal government doesn't have, and spending it adds to the annual budget deficit and the national debt.

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/01/31/TRAINed.ART_ART_01-31-10_G4_65GE42T.html?sid=101

 

 

Regardless of my opinions on 3C, this is a dismal editorial.

I made one such instance above, please go up and read. Then do a general query for that specific line. I've also made one reference to another line a few pages back.

 

And they are both apples and oranges comparisons with respect to the 3-C.  I already explained why the Kentucky Cardinal is.  Your other example-- The Music City Star is a commuter train.  You can't compare a commuter corridor with an intercity corridor. 

 

but there are rail proposals that have been built that have failed, and you just can't accept that.

 

No, what I can't accept are meaningless comparisons-- which the Kentucky Cardinal and Music City Star are.  Give us a comparison that is actually comparing apples to apples. 

I agree that this incremental approach will not live up to the high standards some are hoping for it. I'm not advocating that we don't build rail. I'm advocating that perhaps we need a different approach to how we are going to do it.

 

I don't understand why some folks have such a difficult time understanding that Ohio is using the same approach that has been used successfully in other states for their state-funded intercity corridors.  The average speeds are similar.  We're not doing anything new or in a lesser way-- and our population density is higher than all but one of those other states.

 

From CivviK:

 

When you sell inter-city rail, you are just selling mobility. You are just competing directly with cars and planes, and the only game in town is speed and efficiency.

 

Actually it's not.  What the other states that are doing this have found out is that speed isn't the top concern.  KJP has discussed this over and over here.  Look back through this thread and you will see that this concern has been covered. 

 

All the other state funded projects went through the same bickering that is currently going on here and around Ohio.  This is what happens when you have a mode of transportation that so many Americans have so little experience with. 

In today's Dayton Daily News it was reported that the 3C line was never meant to be high-speed and Ohio never asked for the money for it to be high-speed because that would be a lot of money. That makes me wonder why Ohio didn't go gun-ho for high-speed and see where the chips fell. Right now is their best chance to receive a ton of federal money.

 

There are probably many reasons, but one of the primary reasons is the timeline requirements for these ARRA projects.  The ARRA (stimulus) project requirements carry rigid timelines that dictate what projects can be constructed.  The point of the ARRA funding was to get people working as fast as possible - not build the long term projects unless they had already been through the environmental/right-of-way/design phases.  ORDC/ODOT and partners should be commended for putting together the environmental documentation in time for the 3-C Quick Start project. 

 

To build higher speed rail (110 mph service as proposed in the Ohio Hub) would require a more robust environmental documentation and ROW purchase.  These two phases alone would be 3-5 years prior to construction.  As an example, a new bridge spanning the Scioto River in Columbus may be needed for the 3-C in the Ohio Hub plan.  This project alone may require 5 years to get through environmental/ROW/design phases and that is being very optimistic.  The ARRA funding does not allow for these types of timeframes.  Quite honestly, the 3-C Quick Start is the best possible service to be expected from ARRA funding given where Ohio was in the project development phases.

I made one such instance above, please go up and read. Then do a general query for that specific line. I've also made one reference to another line a few pages back.

 

And they are both apples and oranges comparisons with respect to the 3-C. I already explained why the Kentucky Cardinal is. Your other example-- The Music City Star is a commuter train. You can't compare a commuter corridor with an intercity corridor.

 

but there are rail proposals that have been built that have failed, and you just can't accept that.

 

No, what I can't accept are meaningless comparisons-- which the Kentucky Cardinal and Music City Star are. Give us a comparison that is actually comparing apples to apples.

 

The Music City Star is somewhat comprable to Sharonville-Middletown-Dayton service on the short end. Then again so is service in North Carolina on the long end. Both are legitimate comparisons, and neither is a slam-dunk prediction, because every situation is different.

 

But regardless of how many failed contemporary examples Sherman can come up with, one cannot ignore that 90% of intercity rail failed only a generation ago. It failed in the 70's, some clung through the 80's, some started again in the 90's and 00's. This is a continuum, and neither of you two's arbitrary distinctions on that continuum to support your differing opinions is 100% legitimate, so I hope you both will concede that.

 

This thread needs a cooling off period.

^ Sorry -- I missed that one above. Still, you offered to list the failures -- plural -- and a couple posts asked for the list. One specialized example does not constitute a list. Still waiting.

 

I'm doing a post a day, as noted above. I've listed two in two days.

Fundamentally, 3C has to be about connecting Columbus to the broader network. It is the fastest growing region in the state. It is the region that is keeping the state data from looking like more like Michigan in terms of growth rates. The question is how, if we can't get the Ft. Wayne/Lima/Pittsburgh line going (which I actually think would be best), then we've gotta connect the capital to the main east-west lines somehow. If you tied Cbus to either of the C's w/out connecting it to the other then the uproar on here and elsewhere would be even more deafening. While agree with Civvik's description of the state, that doesn't really answer the problem of Columbus. A lot of the Clevelanders seem to be focus on their connection to Cbus, while the Cincy folks are worried about the same darn thing - maybe if we called the CC+CC everyone would be happy. Like Cincinnatians and Clevelanders are going to be willing to share a train car anyway.

This couldn't be more wrong, and typical of Columbusite's.  The 3C "should" be about connecting Cleveland to the broader network; Chicago, NY, & DC, Detroit, & Pittsburgh.  The only benefit of this thing going through Columbus is for the people in Columbus (and Cincinnati).

I wouldn't say the Dispatch editorial means they are reversing course.  They are understandably concerned about our nation's debt-load.  The thing is, this is the kind of spending that will have an economic payback.  It's the kind of thing that is ok to finance with debt.  Where was the Dispatch when we financed the Iraq war with debt??? 

 

 

Actually, I would love to fund passenger rail with the gas tax.  But I'm sure Detroit and Texas are simply too far powerful a lobby for that.

 

Why should I (a driver) have to pay for passenger rail? Why should my share, which I pay out in the form of state and federal gasoline taxes, go towards rail transit? Or, in the proposal someone actually lobbied for, why should logo service fees (the service/blue signs on interstates) go towards rail transit?

^It's a calculated policy decision.  For each action there is a reaction.  And in this case if you tax people for driving it, in theory, should act as a deterrent.  Then if you take that revenue generated by said tax and invest it in public transportation you are offering a direct alternative to the human behavior you're trying to discourage.

 

So in a nutshell what's being said by policy decisions like this is that our over-dependence on the automobile is seen as an overall negative for society.  It is also saying that our current tax structure can not sustain itself under the current system.  Therefore a fundamental change is needed in terms of human behavior to one that is more manageable.

I would say that it is far more effective, from a political and policy standpoint, to let OPEC regulate gas prices instead of our governmental agency. The last gas spike several years ago caused a fundamental change in the types of cars Americans drove, for instance -- a shift away from the big SUV's to the smaller crossovers and compacts. It also increased mass transit usage in many areas of the nation. But this really didn't hurt politics at home, because we could point the volatile futures at speculators and OPEC, not American politicians.

 

Raising the state/federal gas tax is creating political suicide. Keeping it constant with inflation -- so that the gas tax could rise or fall depending on inflation automatically (e.g. it went down in Kentucky for 2010, but up for 2009), is more appealing and keeps it out of politics.

 

I would say that raising the gas prices alone can alter driving behavior -- some switching to smaller vehicles, others taking mass transit where available. But the same can't be said for large proportion of the state that live in rural areas and can't be realistically served by rail, bus or airline. Would raising the tax adversely affect them rather than the urban cores that would receive the benefits first?

And as several of us have stated, before essentially being shouted down, we believe that this "incremental" approach will fail. And that the whole CUT debacle will be an instrumental part of that failure.

 

If the incremental approach is bound to fail, as you say, then how do you explain California voters voting twice to pass statewide bond issues to support conventional speed intercity trains over the last decade: thus setting up the political will to then get a high speed rail bond issue passed?  They built on success in a deliberate step-by step manner.  So has Illinois, Wisconsin, North Carolina....all of whom recieved stimulus funding to advance higher speed rail plans.

 

As Ohio's get's its 3C going, the ORDC will soon get the environmental review of 4 higher-speed (110 MPH ) Ohio corridors underway.  If the timing goes well, by the time the first 3C trains start to roll in mid to late 2012, the work on an environmental impact statement on the four corridors whould either be complete or near-complete.  This will put Ohio in position to be eligible for matching federal funding.

 

BTW: the corridors are:

 

Cleveland-Pittsburgh

Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit

Columbus-Toledo

and the 3C (to ramp service up to 110 MPH from 79).

 

But please everyone, let's stop the nitpickingand griping.  Ohio won the passenger rail funding lottery!  $400-million is nothing to sneeze at.  It won't fund everyone's wish list, but it gets us rolling in the right direction to build bigger, better passenger rail systems.

We were all hoping for something more, and what we got was a political minimum, done to appease the Democratic majority and Stickland, who is facing reelection. If you don't believe politics isn't involved in this, then you are wearing your rose colored glasses for far too long.

 

I tend to agree with this, except the Feds seem to be supporting places that already support high-speed rail.  Recall that it was Wisconsin Dept. of Transporation, WisDoT, that initiated the concept of a midwest regional rail system centered on Chicago, and put money behind this by subsiziding service betwen Milwaulkee and Chicago.  So we see more money going to Wisconsin.

 

And Californians passed a referendum supporting a high-speed system in their state, and Feds are kicking in billions to match this support.

 

As we all know there is very little political support for passenger rail in Ohio, based on past referendums and the actions of the GOP in Columbus, yet the Feds kick in $400M to Ohio, for a line that doesnt really line up with the Midwest hub concept focused on Chicago, plus is in a declining state.  Good investment?  Hmm.... 

^ Ohio is an important and still quite populous state and we deserve to have a good rail system forced upon us, for our own good.

 

Sometimes, a good investment is *made* with good leadership.

On a more positive note, from the blogosphere in Dayton, uberblogger Esrati opines:

 

Why Trains are Good For Ohio

 

(plus some critical comments from the libertarian peanut gallery)

 

...then over at Dayton Most Metro a very upbeat thread on how to take advantage of  3-C stop in Dayton:

 

3C + D Corridor

 

Anyone can comment on Esrati (and I invited proponents to do so since this is an influential blog), but you have to register to contribute to Dayton Most Metro.

 

 

 

As we all know there is very little political support for passenger rail in Ohio, based on past referendums and the actions of the GOP in Columbus, yet the Feds kick in $400M to Ohio, for a line that doesnt really line up with the Midwest hub concept focused on Chicago, plus is in a declining state. Good investment? Hmm....

 

I disagree with any implication that this was purely a political ploy to keep a Democrat in the governor's office.  It is a good investment for the region to get Ohio into the loop, because it links a significant population (3C's plus cities along the way, Dayton, Springfield, Mansfield, and potential connections to Youngstown and Pittsburgh, Toledo, Erie, Buffalo, etc.) to the Chicago hub.  Plus if limited train service converts more people to positive views of rail travel, there will be even more political will behind further rail improvements that would lead to true high-speed rail lines. 

 

Strickland will be long gone before any of that comes to pass.

noozer, most of us here believe in rail and want to see it happen. We just happen to disagree on the current plan and how the capital, both financial and political, should be utilized. For Cincinnatians, especially, it is disappointing and discouraging.

 

Ditto. I wish people would stop characterizing people who are opposed to the slow-speed 2C+D plan as being anti-rail or non-believers. That has nothing to do with it. We all disagree for varying reasons. Speed. Type of line. Political. Financial. Capital. Plan. And so on. And for some of us, we are even more pissed of that one particular city was given the middle finger, so to speak.

 

I should have a journal entry prepared tomorrow night prepared elaborating on my position and that of others, along with some maps that I'm currently rendering. I'll start a new thread for that.

Strickland will be long gone before any of that comes to pass.

 

The way the polling is looking the voters seem prepared to give him the heave-ho in favor of Kaisich, who will pull the plug on 3-C. And we know that John Husted is opposed.  This has become a partisan political issue.

 

So what are the next steps? Will an RFP be released for a contractor--for design or construction or both? Has Preliminary Engineering already been complete or does that still have to be done? Is ODOT the agency in charge of the project? I read that service is to begin by 2011--that's very soon for a new rail line.

^ Ohio is an important and still quite populous state and we deserve to have a good rail system forced upon us, for our own good.

 

Sometimes, a good investment is *made* with good leadership.

 

I agree.... this state is still in the top 10 for population...and sometimes I don't think most in the state, especially being raised with the suburban sprawl model for 50 plus years, understand WHY investing in rail makes good long term sense. Sure a right plan is essential, but the concept of rail here cannot be poo pooed. I tend to have a 'do it anyway for their own good' feeling too. If done right, the fruits will surface and maybe we can get back to showing people how it was done for so long in the first place! We're so lacking in being informed about benefits of rail, you'd think some have never seen or heard of a train before in their whole lives!

So what are the next steps? Will an RFP be released for a contractor--for design or construction or both? Has Preliminary Engineering already been complete or does that still have to be done? Is ODOT the agency in charge of the project? I read that service is to begin by 2011--that's very soon for a new rail line.

 

There isn't too much to build, is there?  I'm guessing most of the equipment at this stage will not be new, even it the service technically is.  One advantage of this approach is that we may have trains rolling before Kasich can do anything about it.  Then, hypthetically, it would be tougher to shut it down.  This could end up being the central debate in the governor's race.

 

With that as a backdrop, we might consider a different kind of "incremental" approach for Ohio... cover the whole state slowly, in increments, but with each increment being modern hi-speed service.  First of all, let's remember that Clevleand is slated to get hi-speed service to Toledo and Chicago, presumably on a quicker timeframe than any 3C upgrade.  Second, let's consider skipping the low-speed stage of 3C and building modern hi-speed track from Dayton to Columbus, maybe Dayton to Sharonville as well.  Could this be done for $400m?  The next few years could be rough going for progressive ideas in Ohio, and I don't want the voting public here to give up on rail travel before they experience its modern form.     

 

Then again, if we instead prioritize getting some service rolling as soon as possible, i.e. the current plan, we could at least force the other side to physically shut it down.  That may be hard for them to do, once it's running.  I guess this all depends on how much of a threat Kasich truly represents.  A changeover in DC is unlikely till at least 2013, and until that happens, we can count on DC as an ally.  Hell, remember how the legal drinking age came about?  DC could withhold highway funds from any states that refuse to play nice with rail.

Second, let's consider skipping the low-speed stage of 3C and building modern hi-speed track from Dayton to Columbus, maybe Dayton to Sharonville as well.

 

327--are you saying build nothing else in this phase except for columbus and southward? the greatest demand is probably CLE-Columbus.

I think that by building the 79 mph version across the whole state, we throw a giant haymaker that the enemies of rail investment could counter rather effectively.  So I'm asking if, within the available budget, we could open with hi-speed service on ANY leg of the route.  I suggested the Dayton legs only because those would involve the least miles/track. 

 

More ideally, I would build Cle-Cbus as hi-speed and wait on the rest, as I suggested over the weekend, but that's the longest leg, so maybe there's not enough cash for that alternative.  I'm looking for alternatives... specifically alternatives that emphasize quality over quantity.  I think we're trying to do too much at once.  I'm afraid a cobbled-together service of limited practical utility will end up framing future debates in the worst possible way.  On the one hand, I may be overstating this line of thought... but on the other hand, I really think it's being glossed over by the pro-rail side, maybe to our long term detriment. 

This is not targeted at any one person, but for the millionth time........ The incremental approach is the only approach that has succeeded. NOWHERE on this planet has ANY high-speed rail service been built without a conventional-speed precedent.

 

HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS NEED TO BE STATED???

 

That is the Hoosier State, which began operations in 1980. The Kentucky Cardinal was a route from Louisville to Chicago via Indy. Two different routes.

 

No it wasn't. When Amtrak, on its own without state support or oversight, created the Kentucky Cardinal, it replaced the Hoosier State. It even took the Hoosier State's train numbers, 850/851. Between Chicago and Indianapolis, the Hoosier State operated (and does so again) four days a week. The Cardinal operated the other three. So on the days that the Cardinal did not operate, the Hoosier State's equipment ran as the Kentucky Cardinal -- a train independent of the Cardinal between Chicago, Indianapolis and Jeffersonville/Louisville. On the days that the Cardinal did operate, a Superliner and a number of freight cars were switched in/out of it at Indianapolis to create the Kentucky Cardinal.

 

When the Kentucky Cardinal was withdrawn due to Amtrak's withdrawal from the mail/express business, Amtrak reverted back to the pre-Kentucky Cardinal operating pattern, with the Hoosier State reclaiming its equipment and its former Chicago-Indianapolis termini while the Cardinal no longer switched out/in cars for Louisville.

 

Again, non-state supported services are not relevant examples to the 3C project. This isn't nitpicking. It's a matter of accuracy. And please, the Kentucky Cardinal was a FREIGHT train. So was the Pennsylvanian extension, Lake Country Limited and several other freight trains that Amtrak operated with a passenger car or three thrown in so it could try to claim it was running a passenger train.

>More ideally, I would build Cle-Cbus

 

Because you're from Cleveland, right? 

 

You guys do realize that existing city bus routes do not presently serve *either* of the two "temporary" station locations in Hamilton County, only one of which is within the Cincinnati city limits?  Sure, it's just a matter of buses going a few blocks in one direction or the other, but I think it outlines just how obscure these Cincinnati locations are. Further, it's at least a 45 minute bus ride from downtown Cincinnati to either of them.

How about a station at Montgomery Road in Norwood?

How about a station at Montgomery Road in Norwood?

 

That's got some possibilities. A few months ago, I was also looking at a station site not far from there -- just north of the interchange of the Norwood Lateral and I-71. The transit service is better at Montgomery Road, however.

 

If the Cincinnati station site is to be changed, a separate environmental assessment with a public hearing will probably have to be conducted and the change approved by the FRA.

This is not targeted at any one person, but for the millionth time........ The incremental approach is the only approach that has succeeded. NOWHERE on this planet has ANY high-speed rail service been built without a conventional-speed precedent.

 

HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS NEED TO BE STATED???

 

If the US were already peppered with truly successful passenger rail, why on earth would we be spending billions all at once on upgrades?  Why this big fuss, why this big bill, if there's already successful rail everywhere you look?  The argument's premises don't add up to its conclusion... so it's immaterial how many times the argument is presented.  On a national scale, the idea is that we need this upgrade because current services ARE NOT sufficiently successful, nor can they be without the upgrade.  But to make the Ohio-specific argument you're making, this entire characterization must be reversed.  Can't have it both ways.

 

My crazy notion of going directly from zero service to high speed... is this a physical impossibility, is this a business impossibility (if so in what way), or is this an assumption we're making simply because it's never been attempted?  Look... there's no need to question my commitment to Sparkle Motion... I'm just interested in the feasibility of Plans B or C or D. 

I don't even know how to respond to that line of bizarre reasoning... I guess the concept of continuing improvement isn't in your vocabulary.

 

By that same reasoning, a student who graduated high school with honors shouldn't go to college.

I believe CSX just stopped operating freight at the Montgomery Rd location in Norwood. (By the Vespa Dealer).  This location would actually work because the track has been recently abandoned and should be in better shape.  Also it is served by the 4, 51 and I think the 31 bus lines.

I don't even know how to respond to that line of bizarre reasoning... I guess the concept of continuing improvement isn't in your vocabulary.

 

By that same reasoning, a student who graduated high school with honors shouldn't go to college.

 

Thanks for being obtuse and nonconstructive. Can you please give more reasonable responses than that?

 

And this goes to everyone: When replying, if you are partaking in any official comment, can you please list out any possible conflicts of interests? I know that some have worked directly with the 3C proposal, and it would be very beneficial to understand any possible conflicts during the discussion. It's not readily apparent to everyone, especially to newer posters.

I believe CSX just stopped operating freight at the Montgomery Rd location in Norwood. (By the Vespa Dealer). This location would actually work because the track has been recently abandoned and should be in better shape. Also it is served by the 4, 51 and I think the 31 bus lines.

 

The Norfolk Southern Hyde Park Branch is now listed as inactive from the Claire Yard to the Norwood Yard at Montgomery Road. The sole customer moved down to Claire. The tracks are not in the best of condition and many ties needed to be repaired. It's not yet abandoned, though.

This track won't work because it passes about 30ft. over the line coming down from Norwood.  Trains would have to travel about a mile east in order to reverse directions and get on this track.  So the crew would have to walk the length of the train and take the controls of the opposite cab, assuming that they are dual cab trains.  Also there's a 2-3% grade for 1.5 miles. 

I don't even know how to respond to that line of bizarre reasoning... I guess the concept of continuing improvement isn't in your vocabulary.

 

By that same reasoning, a student who graduated high school with honors shouldn't go to college.

 

You're among friends here, but please, for the sake of all we believe in, please do not use that approach with the general public.  I personally find it illogical to tell people that America already has a successful rail system, yet we need to completely overhaul that system at great cost right away. 

 

I've written government papers on the concept of "continuous improvement" and it's a concept that applies to internal operations, not to consumable products or services.  It's not something you try to sell your customers on.

 

So skip that issue entirely... I understand that it would be unprecedented, but is it physically impossible to build hi-speed from scratch?  Next question... I understand that it would be unprecedented, but would it be physically impossible to even discuss or consider such a thing?

I would say that it is far more effective, from a political and policy standpoint, to let OPEC regulate gas prices instead of our governmental agency. The last gas spike several years ago caused a fundamental change in the types of cars Americans drove, for instance -- a shift away from the big SUV's to the smaller crossovers and compacts. It also increased mass transit usage in many areas of the nation. But this really didn't hurt politics at home, because we could point the volatile futures at speculators and OPEC, not American politicians.

 

Raising the state/federal gas tax is creating political suicide. Keeping it constant with inflation -- so that the gas tax could rise or fall depending on inflation automatically (e.g. it went down in Kentucky for 2010, but up for 2009), is more appealing and keeps it out of politics.

 

I would say that raising the gas prices alone can alter driving behavior -- some switching to smaller vehicles, others taking mass transit where available. But the same can't be said for large proportion of the state that live in rural areas and can't be realistically served by rail, bus or airline. Would raising the tax adversely affect them rather than the urban cores that would receive the benefits first?

 

My comment had nothing to do with regulating gas prices, so I'm not sure why you went on this tangent.

I don't even know how to respond to that line of bizarre reasoning... I guess the concept of continuing improvement isn't in your vocabulary.

 

By that same reasoning, a student who graduated high school with honors shouldn't go to college.

 

You're among friends here, but please, for the sake of all we believe in, please do not use that approach with the general public.  I personally find it illogical to tell people that America already has a successful rail system, yet we need to completely overhaul that system at great cost right away. 

 

I've written government papers on the concept of "continuous improvement" and it's a concept that applies to internal operations, not to consumable products or services.  It's not something you try to sell your customers on.

 

So skip that issue entirely... I understand that it would be unprecedented, but is it physically impossible to build hi-speed from scratch?  Next question... I understand that it would be unprecedented, but would it be physically impossible to even discuss or consider such a thing?

 

It is physically possible, but probably cost-prohibitive and, indeed, unprecedented.

Anything is possible with enough political and financial capital.  But is it feasible in this political climate?

 

My general impression is that existing lines are upgraded to high speed when there is sufficient demand.  Since the demand for this corridor is still an abstraction of a number in a study and not based on real world data, it would be more politically feasible to implement something close to the submitted plan. 

 

That being said, I think the concerns are that public buy-in of a non-high speed alternative is a non-starter with the public.  I guess this is a situation where this project can be chastised either way.  It's unfortunate because a lot of people have high hopes for this corridor.  I for one am determined to support this wherever it goes (if it comes to Cincy or Sharonville).

I guess I'm just astonished that some people are so unhappy over winning $400 million in the FRA lottery. There are plenty of states (cough, Michigan, cough cough) where they asked for much more than we did but would have loved to win as much as we did. I feel bad that some of you cannot enjoy this stunning fact:

 

This is the largest-ever federal grant awarded to a passenger rail project in Ohio's history.

Now is not the time to be fighting with eachother on this.  We are all (for the most part) on the same team and want to see passenger rail flourish again in Ohio.  Connecting the 3C's is the first step and we've just been awarded money to make that happen.  Yes, the train won't be HSR from the start, but as KJP has pointed out no rail line starts off as HSR.  Let's just get the thing rolling and then take the next steps to get it going 110 mph over the entire route.  All you need to do is get travel times close to that of a car and your market expands drastically. 

...and an alcohol car.  Seriously.  A bar car will bring me on a trip from downtown Dayton to drinking in Tremont!