Are there any plans of something similar to a ZipCar around the stations?  I would think if people had that option, they'd be much more likely to utilize it

Says the person who lives in a city with light rail' date=' adequate Amtrak service, and inclusion in the (apparently) 2-C Corridor.[/quote']

 

Cleveland has both light rail (Shaker Lines) and heavy rail (Red Line). But the Amtrak service is far from ideal, unless one likes arriving and catching trains in the middle of the night.

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???

 

 

As much as I believe in the general philosophy of doing something right the first time or don't do it at all....and quality over quantity...and as much as I agree with 327's thoughtful and cautious vision that doing anything less could set it up for a lot of criticism from opponents.... I also have to acknowledge that Ohio is so lacking of any rail, that a nicely done conventional system with a higher speed may be all it takes to knock the socks off of people who have never grown up with or have witnessed any type of rail sevice at all.....whatsoever. I HOPE!!! (fingers crossed!) ....and thus, gain a lot of popular support.

 

By the way, I know it has been discused, but while they're at it, can we get some kind of  service to Youngstown/Warren? For my relatives there...and where I am originally from, specifically in N.E. Ohio, leaves one stranded to get into the city (Cleveland--as lots travel/commute to Cleveland from over there) unless you yave a car. There is absolutely NO choice...you're pretty much forced to have a car if you have to get anywhere!

Rather dismiss people asking the question of why would they take a train that takes twice as long than a car, and leaves you carless is the middle of Ohio's car oriented cities, could you try answering it? I would really like to see this answered from someone supporting this plan.

 

I would venture to say that if there is indeed a market for rail travel, secondary modes of travel will work themselves out. Most cities have airports without mass transit.

 

As for Cincinnati's predicament, and I do think it is an unfortunate predicament, it is perhaps encouraging to remember that downtown cores are not the only destination for travelers. Cincinnati has many destinations, and a Sharonville station would be able to serve most of them with no complementary transit.

 

As long as you have some trains to choose from that go non-stop between the 3 Cs and they aren't leaving at ridiculous hours then I'm happy.

You are on to something. It makes sense to party on a train to see the Browns or Bengals and not have to worry about driving. This is a key advantage for trains.

 

South Shore trains have no bar or lounge car, but they do have a BYOB policy; you can bring your own refreshment and consume it on board except at specified times. Some of the prohibited dates are around major public party events in the Loop (Taste of Chicago, Jazz Fest, etc.) when they'd rather not have raucous drunks bringing the party on board and annoying other passengers and puking on the seats.

 

I looked for info on the alcohol policy on NICTD's web site, but couldn't find it. If I can, I'll contact them and ask about it.

Did we ask for any direct-to-high-speed action like Florida got? What did we ask for that got turned down, other than the rest of the 3C funding? We could have asked for 3-C plus Toledo to Youngstown, plus the Canton Rocketship and the Zanesville-Steubenville Zany Superfun Express.  

 

 

 

There are substantial costs in terms of time, money, and opportunity to preparing and submitting applications, especially competitive ones, so it's not necessarily the case that we could or should have submitted numerous poorly conceived applications.

Granted, but were we the only state who didn't even ask for HSR?  As part of an HSR program that can in fact build HSR from scratch and is being promoted nationwide as HSR?  Ohio is a swing state that is widely credited with putting Obama over the top, so we were bound to get something, but it's hard for me to envision how we could have gotten any less.  In fairness, what was DC supposed to do if we literally did not ask for any HSR?  I'm trying to figure out who decided there would be no HSR for Ohio.  Did DC decide that?  Did Ohio? 

 

It sounds more and more like it was a strategic miscalculation on our end.  I think the majority of people in Cincinnati would prefer a Cleveland-Canton HSR over 3-C, and the majority in Cleveland would prefer Cincy-Dayton HSR over 3-C.  I think if 3-C is presented as slower-than-car for a period of years it gets virtually no popular support, and I think most of the support 3-C has received has been based on the misunderstanding that it would be competitive both with cars and with rail in other states. 

 

I can't help but wonder if we'd have gotten more money by going for high-speed instead of wider coverage.  MMQB, I know, but if there's any chance of refocusing or repurposing those funds then we gotta look into it.  We can't even build the 3-C with what they gave us, so a major selling point of that plan is out the door. 

 

Increasingly I feel like the whole "3-C" concept was a political calculation, and not in the best interest of rail travel or of Ohio.  Now that Cincy is getting the shit end of the stick, I think the political calculation may be backfiring and it's time for a serious re-jiggeration of our priorities.  Based on all the other awards, and the singular slowness of Ohio's, it looks like we missed the boat in a major way.

 

Is any other state spending ARRA money on anything this slow?  I don't care if they already have something this slow, I mean are they building that now, with this money.  How much of what we're about to buy will carry over to the high-speed system we actually want?  How much of this $400 million is going toward equipment that's obsolete before we even buy it?

 

Think about that... our very next goal is to replace this thing.  Our very next goal.  That's a lot of money to spend jumping through hoops and going through motions, a paradigm which may itself be obsolete.  Lots of paradigms have been "true" for the last 30 years or so, only to come crashing down at some point recently.  So do we really have to level-up our character like we're playing D&D or WoW?  That's how it's being made to sound, and that's insane. 

You never get the full amount of money you ask for...and as a result if we wanted $517M then we should have asked for $1B.  Going in with a compromised plan from the start is setting yourself up for disappointment (see the health care struggle and how quickly we lost the public option).

We should have asked for $1B anyway, which means we should have asked for $2B.  We should have demonstrated a sense for the way things were moving at the national level, i.e. away from 79 mph service.  It's one thing to play catch-up, it's another thing if what you're doing does not result in any actual catching up.  Under this logic, Ohio will have the worst rail service in America for the next 1000 years... or until every other state simultaneously stops improving, because that's the only chance we'd ever have to match their technology.

^ If that's true, then you are already admitting defeat before the game begins.

 

We cannot change the past.  But we can direct our future.  Getting the 3C up and running is a start toward that future and we move forward from there.

Check out the Ohio reference in this latest Amtrak TV ad.... someone is actually showing some creativity at Amtrak.  Good to see.

 

That's a pretty old commercial, and ran in early 2009.

Fun Fact of the Day. 

 

General Fund Appropriations to Highway Projects in Ohio by local governments- $430,477,000

General Fund Appropriations to Highway Projects in Ohio by state government- $22,255,000 

 

Total- $453,732,000

 

 

2007 FHWA Highway Statistics Tables SF-1, LGF-1

^ If that's true, then you are already admitting defeat before the game begins.

 

That's not true, what 327 is highlighting is that we'll be playing catch up forever with the way things are now.  Sure it's great that we're getting started with something, but we're decades behind most places already and we needed a game changer in order to actually catch up.  Unfortunately not only did we not receive that game changer, but we didn't even ask for it.  By the time we get 110mph service in place most other highly populated urban corridors in this nation will have far better service with faster travel speeds, higher frequencies, better stations, and newer rolling stock.

What about this idea:

Go ahead with the project as planned, as far as Dayton, and use the saved money to do it right. ("Right" as in not cutting corners, as has been suggested, due to less money than requested.) But promise Cincy that the next line built will be high speed from CVG (or at least CUT/Riverside Transit Center, since KY would have to jump on board for CVG) to Dayton? Is that, or a simple variation (say going to Sharonville initially) at all feasible?

you are already admitting defeat before the game begins.

 

Please elaborate... who here is claiming that we're not allowed to skip a step, and that this unchallengable commandment is why it's necessary to spend our entire allotment on the same 79 mph service that other states are currently replacing. 

 

They move to 110, we build 79.  They move to 150, we upgrade to 110.  They reach 220, we reach the level Florida is currently at.  As long as we have to follow the same "incremental" path they did, we will forever be behind them.  The gap begins to close only when Ohio refuses to be "incremental" and insists on building modern competitive service.

^ If that's true, then you are already admitting defeat before the game begins.

 

That's not true, what 327 is highlighting is that we'll be playing catch up forever with the way things are now.  Sure it's great that we're getting started with something, but we're decades behind most places already and we needed a game changer in order to actually catch up.  Unfortunately not only did we not receive that game changer, but we didn't even ask for it.  By the time we get 110mph service in place most other highly populated urban corridors in this nation will have far better service with faster travel speeds, higher frequencies, better stations, and newer rolling stock.

There is another possible scenario: since we'll be sitting out for a few years on the high-speed bandwagon, we'll have a chance to cherry-pick a better technology, when we finally do hop aboard (lol, pun). Allow others to test-pilot, and us to stand on the shoulders of giants.

 

I know a lot of this has already been done across the world, I am just trying to look at a positive possibility. Who knows, maybe a massive jump in tech will be made in the next few years, and we will be lucky not to be working on an outdated while we watch other states starting up a whole new era of ultra-high-speed trains.

 

For example, the Northeast Corridor is getting shafted now by being ahead of the game. If they were in our current position, they would probably be receiving more money than Cali and getting the best of the best. Instead, they are viewed as a fairly low priority, as they already have (popular!) service, but that service is (nearly?) impossible to upgrade to high speed.

Are any other states skipping a step in the process?  Meaning, are there any other states that are going straight from 79mph to 150mph or have planned to make the jump from 110mph to 220mph?

 

Fun Fact of the Day. 

Total- $453,732,000

 

True, but that $453,732,000 funnels millions of vehicles a year, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year. That's a good return on investment, and one that gasoline taxes pay a large proportion of. General appropriations (aka "pork" to some) covers some, but not most of the cost of these projects.

 

The $400,000,000 we received for the slow-speed 3C line will run what, 12 hours or so a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year, but only have 4 or so trains running in each direction a day? You'd either have to get a hotel room in a city for the night or leave by mid-afternoon.

 

Estimated ridership: 478,000 a year, whereas that is the approximate vehicle-per-day count of Interstate 75 in Cincinnati over a three day period.

Are any other states skipping a step in the process?  Meaning, are there any other states that are going straight from 79mph to 150mph or have planned to make the jump from 110mph to 220mph?

 

Yes!  Florida is going from zero to 150+ between Tampa and Orlando.  Presumably the "incremental" process is on a per-track basis... if it refers to entire state governments, entire state populations, then it's completely ludicrous.  That's like saying Ohio needs 25,000 experience points to reach 5th level as a wizard before it can cast the Flying spell.

 

And natininja you're right, there could soon be a burst of new tech in this area, and we may benefit from not installing something that's about to be obsolete.  But keep in mind that we're already talking about installing something that's about to be obsolete. 

Fun Fact of the Day.

Total- $453,732,000

 

True, but that $453,732,000 funnels millions of vehicles a year, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year. That's a good return on investment, and one that gasoline taxes pay a large proportion of. General appropriations (aka "pork" to some) covers some, but not most of the cost of these projects.

 

The $400,000,000 we received for the slow-speed 3C line will run what, 12 hours or so a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year, but only have 4 or so trains running in each direction a day? You'd either have to get a hotel room in a city for the night or leave by mid-afternoon.

 

Estimated ridership: 478,000 a year, whereas that is the approximate vehicle-per-day count of Interstate 75 in Cincinnati over a three day period.

 

Sherman, that is the amount of general fund revenue used.  Gas taxes don't represent a dime of that figure.

 

 

You'd either have to get a hotel room in a city for the night or leave by mid-afternoon.

Actually, I think a non-negligible portion of the people riding the train will have a friend's place to crash at. That would also be relevant when thinking about "oh noes, they are getting dumped in a city center with no way of getting anywhere!"

 

When I think about this rail service, I immediately think of all the times I used to drive from Cincy to Cbus (or occasionally take the Greyhound) when I had lots of friends going to OSU. Many of those friends were from Cincy, Dayton, and Cleveland, and would travel to visit their parents frequently. I also think about my parents' annual trips from Cincy to visit their friends in Cleveland.

 

Am I crazy to think that most people from the 3C's+D know someone whose place they can crash at in most of those cities?

 

As for business trips, it's an issue, but if it's just for one meeting, the meetings can of course be scheduled at an opportune time, in most cases. Business, unlike entertainment, generally happens during the day, anyway.

Am I crazy to think that most people from the 3C's+D know someone whose place they can crash at in most of those cities?

 

Most young people, yes.  That's something people do in their 20s and it tails off after that.  Mainly because people then have families with kids.  "Crashing" is also a little less appropriate for a mid-week business trip.  And day trips among the 3C's for business are pretty common.  But they're highly impractical with the travel times we're hearing about for this startup service, and that will take away a ton of the market.  I see this being used a lot for weekend excursions, and during the week by people who work from computer and largely make their own schedules.  I don't see a whole lot more market for it, other than cannibalizing Grayhound's market, which is allright by me.

as far as I can tell, Ohio spends $6.2 billion per year on its roads (state and local) and collects user fees of $4.1 billion per year (includes state and federal gas taxes and fees)

hopefully the schedule will allow for business commuting.

Am I crazy to think that most people from the 3C's+D know someone whose place they can crash at in most of those cities?

 

Most young people, yes. That's something people do in their 20s and it tails off after that. Mainly because people then have families with kids. "Crashing" is also a little less appropriate for a mid-week business trip. And day trips among the 3C's for business are pretty common. But they're highly impractical with the travel times we're hearing about for this startup service, and that will take away a ton of the market. I see this being used a lot for weekend excursions, and during the week by people who work from computer and largely make their own schedules. I don't see a whole lot more market for it, other than cannibalizing Grayhound's market, which is allright by me.

For one, I don't think the schedule is set in stone. You can't criticize the project over a detail that can be changed on a whim.

 

For two, it would just be necessary for any meetings to be scheduled in the window of time available to those taking part in the meeting. Yes, it could be a problem in some cases. It's also true that the local business communities could throw their weight around to create a train schedule which suits their needs.

 

As for leisure travelers, it is limiting, but I think a significant proportion of these travelers plan to stay with a friend (regardless of how they are traveling) when they travel between these cities. Frankly, I would bet the most cited reason (non-business) to go from one to another would be to visit friends. I know my parents only to Cleveland only to visit their friends. They're most certainly not in their 20's. (I know it's anecdotal, but I don't think this is uncommon. Other reasons for people to leisure-travel within Ohio also fade after one's 20's, I would bet. At least as things are, currently.)

 

But in terms of the existence of the service inspiring someone to take a trip and explore one of the cities, which I believe is a noble and achievable goal, the schedule is an issue. It's also limiting for people deciding to, on a whim, go to one of the cities. If someone in Columbus is thinking about how to spend their evening, and they decide to go to a Reds game, it's unlikely they will just call up a friend at a moment's notice and ask to stay the night. (And that's particularly demographically sensitive, as this might be socially appropriate for, say, a university student, but less so for anyone much older.)

The schedule is most certainly not set in stone. It was a draft and listed as such by Amtrak for planning purposes.

 

Amtrak proposed an equally unpopular schedule for expanded services which the State of Illinois was sponsoring. Illinois collected the input, objected to Amtrak and the schedule was changed to reflect the input.

 

Submit your input to ODOT/ORDC on the schedule. With it, ODOT/ORDC will have a stronger basis on which to ask Amtrak to redesign the schedule.

BTW, if you want to see an edited video of last week's announcement, go to this web page for the Ohio Higher Education Rail Network (OHERN) < http://ohern.org/about/resources.php > then scroll down to the first video listed under the VIDEO category.

 

And there is more video here.....

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

as far as I can tell, Ohio spends $6.2 billion per year on its roads (state and local) and collects user fees of $4.1 billion per year (includes state and federal gas taxes and fees)

 

From the State of the Transportation System Report, 1997:

FY 1997, ODOT's budget was $1.79 billion. $928 million was construction, with an average of $950 million in the years ahead, and $793 million in the years prior. It had an operating cost of $477 million, with that increasing by around $28 million per year. Inflation is tacked on at 3% per year.

 

I think someone mentioned earlier about how the 3C slow-speed line will employ around 8,000 workers directly and indirectly. ODOT directly employs 6,000 alone.

 

In the ODOT Business Plan 2008-2009, for 2007:

Revenue: $3.019 billion (state and federal sources, state and federal bonds, and savings)

Program uses: $3.019 billion

 

For 2008, that number shrinks:

Revenue: $2.836 billion

Program uses: $2.836 billion

Reserved for major new projects (excluding earmarks): $672 million

Carryfoward: $312 million

Current cost estimates to complete major new projects: $868 million

Major projects new balance: $116 million

Cumulative major projects new balance: $116 million

 

For 2009 and on, ODOT faces shortfalls of over $200 million for major projects due to a decline in current revenue sources. Ohio gets relatively shortchanged by the federal Highway Trust Fund, which is now -- for all intents and purposes, bankrupt because federal gas revenues declined and gas taxes did not stay current with inflation. So our revenues are on the decline.

Fun Fact of the Day. 

Total- $453,732,000

 

True, but that $453,732,000 funnels millions of vehicles a year, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year. That's a good return on investment, and one that gasoline taxes pay a large proportion of. General appropriations (aka "pork" to some) covers some, but not most of the cost of these projects.

 

The $400,000,000 we received for the slow-speed 3C line will run what, 12 hours or so a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year, but only have 4 or so trains running in each direction a day? You'd either have to get a hotel room in a city for the night or leave by mid-afternoon.

 

Estimated ridership: 478,000 a year, whereas that is the approximate vehicle-per-day count of Interstate 75 in Cincinnati over a three day period.

 

That $453 million is a yearly recurring OPERATING cost.  How could you compare that to a one-time start-up cost?

 

If over the last 50 years we had spent billions upon billions constructing a massive infrastructure network for rail, I'll bet we could run one helluva rail system for $453 million a year in operating costs, especially if it had become the dominant form of transportation through government intervention and incentives as more people would be forced to buy tickets, which could be sold at a higher cost.

as far as I can tell, Ohio spends $6.2 billion per year on its roads (state and local) and collects user fees of $4.1 billion per year (includes state and federal gas taxes and fees)

 

From the State of the Transportation System Report, 1997:

FY 1997, ODOT's budget was $1.79 billion. $928 million was construction, with an average of $950 million in the years ahead, and $793 million in the years prior. It had an operating cost of $477 million, with that increasing by around $28 million per year. Inflation is tacked on at 3% per year.

 

I think someone mentioned earlier about how the 3C slow-speed line will employ around 8,000 workers directly and indirectly. ODOT directly employs 6,000 alone.

 

In the ODOT Business Plan 2008-2009, for 2007:

Revenue: $3.019 billion (state and federal sources, state and federal bonds, and savings)

Program uses: $3.019 billion

 

For 2008, that number shrinks:

Revenue: $2.836 billion

Program uses: $2.836 billion

Reserved for major new projects (excluding earmarks): $672 million

Carryfoward: $312 million

Current cost estimates to complete major new projects: $868 million

Major projects new balance: $116 million

Cumulative major projects new balance: $116 million

 

For 2009 and on, ODOT faces shortfalls of over $200 million for major projects due to a decline in current revenue sources. Ohio gets relatively shortchanged by the federal Highway Trust Fund, which is now -- for all intents and purposes, bankrupt because federal gas revenues declined and gas taxes did not stay current with inflation. So our revenues are on the decline.

 

That is only ODOT spending, you have to also add in the local government spending as well.

For revenue, it accounts for federal and state. There is no way that you can jump from $3.019 to $6.2 billion on local government spending alone.

Actually I was a little off

Expenditures

Ohio Total Disbursements Local- $2,103,502,000

Ohio Total Disbursements State- $3,318,806,000

 

Total Disbursements - $5,422,302,000

 

Revenue from End User Fees

State Gas Tax- $1,866,206,000

State Vehicle Tax- $733,939,000

Tolls- $201,155,000

Total State- $2,801,300,000

 

Federal Gasoline Tax- $1,335,416,000

 

Total Revenue- $4,136,716,000

 

Subsidy- $1,285,586,000

 

FHWA Highway Statistics 2007 Tables LGF-2, FE-9, SF-2

Actually I was a little off

 

Why are we both getting different numbers for what should be the same base data? I'll see what I can find and call up ODOT directly tomorrow (but this is for another thread).

Sherman, you are forgetting that people have to buy their own cars in order to drive on highways and benefit directly from them.  You or your parents, that is.

 

People say "I already have a car".  Even if your car is paid off, there are still constant, sporadic repair costs in addition to insurance and fuel.  Everyone complains about paying $2,000 for a transmission or $1,000 for a dented bumper, but somehow public transportation is too expensive. 

Actually I was a little off

 

Why are we both getting different numbers for what should be the same base data? I'll see what I can find and call up ODOT directly tomorrow (but this is for another thread).

 

The FHWA includes highway law enforcement and debt servicing.  I think that may be it.

Sherman, you are forgetting that people have to buy their own cars in order to drive on highways and benefit directly from them.  You or your parents, that is.

 

People say "I already have a car".  Even if your car is paid off, there are still constant, sporadic repair costs in addition to insurance and fuel.  Everyone complains about paying $2,000 for a transmission or $1,000 for a dented bumper, but somehow public transportation is too expensive.

 

I don't think I ever discounted those costs, nor anyone else on here. There is a set fixed and variable cost, and on the long-term, it can be cheaper to take the train. But people weigh the implicit and explicit cost of driving over taking slow-speed rail, and then factor in time, convenience and feature set. For some, especially those who cannot or do not drive, or cannot afford a used car and basic insurance, the 3C corridor will be for them; for most others, it will not. Nor should we expect most to take the 3C, nor should we expect it to be the knight in shining armor, but it is a start and a compromise.

 

Actually I was a little off

 

Why are we both getting different numbers for what should be the same base data? I'll see what I can find and call up ODOT directly tomorrow (but this is for another thread).

 

The FHWA includes highway law enforcement and debt servicing.  I think that may be it.

 

That may be it. ODOT discounts the state police force as that pushed through on a separate budget. I wonder if the FHWA numbers are consistent for all states, because I know that KYTC (Kentucky Transportation Cabinet) do not include the vehicle enforcement and state police under their budget.

^ If that's true, then you are already admitting defeat before the game begins.

 

That's not true, what 327 is highlighting is that we'll be playing catch up forever with the way things are now.  Sure it's great that we're getting started with something, but we're decades behind most places already and we needed a game changer in order to actually catch up.  Unfortunately not only did we not receive that game changer, but we didn't even ask for it.  By the time we get 110mph service in place most other highly populated urban corridors in this nation will have far better service with faster travel speeds, higher frequencies, better stations, and newer rolling stock.

 

I understand.  But would you prefer that Ohio did nothing to pursue the stimulus dollars?  We can talk all day about "coulda, shoulda, woulda's" but the discussion about Ohio shooting blanks for 35 years on passenger rail funding and development achieves nothing.

 

We not only got a fresh start last Thursday, but that start came with $400-million to get passenger rail underway in Ohio and that will lead to further investment in rail and more and better trains!  Are we playing catch-up? Heck yes we are!  But one can sit on the sidelines or the cheap seats and throw verbal beer cans....or one can get on the field and get in the game.  If that's not possible, at least be a bit thankful that Ohio ran the $400-million dollar dash and won.

   

I am really coming around to thinking spending this in Ohio is a waste of money.

 

I know we few, we happy few, we band of Urban Ohioans support the concept, but is there political support and ridership to really make this happen without the plug getting pulled a few years on?

 

Jeffery's right.  As it stands right now, the plan is fiscally irresponsible and doesn't deliver competitive results.

 

Do it right or don't do it.  Unfortunately, we don't have the money to waste.

I understand.  But would you prefer that Ohio did nothing to pursue the stimulus dollars?  We can talk all day about "coulda, shoulda, woulda's" but the discussion about Ohio shooting blanks for 35 years on passenger rail funding and development achieves nothing.

 

No, I have never stated that we should have avoided pursuing the stimulus dollars.  In fact I said quite the contrary and stated that we should have pursued 2-3x more than what we actually did.

 

It's encouraging on one hand that we're actually in the ballgame now, but on the other hand it's a bit discouraging to know we'll still be 10-20 years behind other similarly built urban corridors in this nation.  And a generation behind similarly built urban corridors in Europe.

I understand. But would you prefer that Ohio did nothing to pursue the stimulus dollars? We can talk all day about "coulda, shoulda, woulda's" but the discussion about Ohio shooting blanks for 35 years on passenger rail funding and development achieves nothing.

 

No, I have never stated that we should have avoided pursuing the stimulus dollars. In fact I said quite the contrary and stated that we should have pursued 2-3x more than what we actually did.

 

It's encouraging on one hand that we're actually in the ballgame now, but on the other hand it's a bit discouraging to know we'll still be 10-20 years behind other similarly built urban corridors in this nation. And a generation behind similarly built urban corridors in Europe.

The most discouraging part is the fact that doing rail wrong the first time will actually set us farther behind than we are right now.

Did you see the political battle ORDC and ODOT had to fight last Spring in the General Assembly just to get the okay to pursue the 3C?  Tell me where the political will would have been found to pursue 2 or 3 times the ask Ohio made for the 3C Quick Start?.... or to make an immediate leap to 110 MPh or faster?  Even with the strong support of Governor Strickland....the first Ohio Governor to so embrace passenger rail.... it was still a huge, uphill struggle to get legislative support for anything beyond the Quick Start.

 

Again.....imagine where we would be if no one bothered to even fight the battle at all.  That's what Ohio had under previous administrations.... we once had a Chief of Staff to a recent former Governor who pretty much told passenger rail advocates and the state's own rail planners to forget about passenger rail.... that it was dead issue.  But some advocates....like KJP and others... wouldn't take no for an answer and kept fighting for what they believed in.  I can think of four very good advocates and friends who are no longer with us and never had the chance to live to see what happened last Thursday.  How they would have enjoyed that moment.

 

But they would have never carped and complained the way I am seeing some do on these pages today.

 

Like I said in my earlier post.... it's like inviting a starving man to dinner and then hear him gripe about the food.

Scrabble:

The most discouraging part is the fact that doing rail wrong the first time will actually set us farther behind than we are right now.

 

 

Uncle Rando:

It's encouraging on one hand that we're actually in the ballgame now, but on the other hand it's a bit discouraging to know we'll still be 10-20 years behind other similarly built urban corridors in this nation.  And a generation behind similarly built urban corridors in Europe.

 

So following the same, successful approach used in North Carolina, Maine, Oklahoma etc is going to lead to failure?  None of those states are much farther ahead than Ohio, their average speeds are 40-50 mph and the funny thing is, their ridership keeps going up (although Oklahoma is hitting a wall because they need to make infrastructure improvements and add frequencies). 

 

Meanwhile the zero to European-style HSR approach has failed in Ohio 4 times over the last 35 years. 

 

ORDC isn't pulling the current plan out of its rear end.  A lot of work has gone into it over the past decade.  It's designed to do what these other states have successfully done.  Noozer's comment that the FRA says Ohio's application was perhaps the strongest received speaks volumes.

 

Anyway, this  discussion is just going around in circles now. 

 

 

 

 

Crain's is trying hard to derail the project and Crain's is an influential paper. We gotta fight this thing. The article includes people who have written in--supporting the author's main argument.

 

"Well, my only advice is to organize a letter/phone/e-mail campaign urging your state and federal representatives to revisit this issue. Right now, it appears that Gov. Strickland and a handful of others are so desperate to create even a modest number of jobs that they don't stop to think about what it's adding to our country's long-term debt problem."

 

He's missing the point completely as he says--the investment is OK for HSR, but not what we're building. He never states--or perhaps doesn't know--that the current project is the first step towards HSR.

 

Here is the article, titled "Off Track":

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20100205/BLOGS01/100209869

 

Of all the comments to the Crains piece, only one is really anti-rail.  The rest are varying degrees of supportive.  Could be worse.  I'm still concerned though that some of these arguments in support have obvious logical holes in them, and I worry that casual support will evaporate as people find out this isn't going to be high speed anytime soon.  And that casual support won't just evaporate... it will switch sides.  I don't think we'll get far with that "incremental" argument, repeated in some of the Crains comments, since the context now is so very different from the historical data on which that argument is based.

Here we go again.

See also cleveland.com, which at the moment offers a matching pair of unfavorable headlines.

 

Edit:  One of which doesn't even attach to an article... they just wanted to put two headlines.

This thread is being reopened; ALL participants would be wise to stay on topic - and refrain from being argumentative or throwing out wackadoodle speculations before a shovel is even in the ground. Think before you post.

 

Thanks MayDay. Things were getting a bit overheated here.