What use is a forum without divergent views?  This isn't a church service.

 

No, it's not a church service.  I've never understood the mentality of going somewhere just to be pissed off and disagree about everything.  But if that's what floats your boat, go for it. 

Scott says he wants to examine the project to see if it meets his criteria of providing taxpayers an adequate return on their investment.

 

As a taxpayer, I'd like to know where the return on my "investment" of the $1 billion that Scott's company defrauded from Medicare. Of course, $10 million went to Scott's golden parachute and another $350 million went to the value of the stock he was given when he left.

 

It amazes me that guys like Scott are the darlings of the Tea Party movement while living off the taxpayers.

 

 

Where is the the return on investment examination of highways?

Where are the voices demanding it?

 

I'm doing my part! :)

Where is the the return on investment examination of highways?

 

Actually, a better response is that there IS a return on investment for highways (and roads). But the problem is that some of that "return" is actually a shifting of wealth from one community to another. Moreover, rarely is the result a zero sum game. The losing side stands to lose more from the blight of abandoned properties while the winning side wins less due to the fact that revenues are offset by the higher costs of development.

 

Roadways do create a return on investment, but not always as desired or intended.

 

Limited access highways are a bit better because the points of egress and ingress are controlled and planned.  But you still have the problem that these are relatively easy to add and so communities interested in development tend to raid neighboring communities that already have it. In addition,  as development occurs along road corridors, so does congestion resulting in the need for more roads.

 

The question is not really whether there is a return on investment, but rather, is the kind of return we want? I don't think that there is much argument that "gains" experienced by the suburbs has come at great cost to the city centers around which they sprung.

 

There is also a return on the investment in passenger rail. But passenger rail has some distinct advantages, most notably, the fact that development can be better planned and less speculative, as well as less damaging to the environment, established communities and the safety of travelers.

 

The Ohio Statehouse New Bureau's BIll Cohen has a very good story on the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy.....

 

http://statenews.org/

It's not just Ohio with its 3C and the Cincinnati streetcar under attack. Nor is it limited to Wisconsin, or Florida or New Jersey.

 

This is a national plot by the GOP which suddenly overturned their past support for rail and transit after being overtaken by oil- and highway-lobby funded interests and extremists who ignore far more massive subsidies for highways and aviation. They now see rail and transit “as a progressive plot to collectivize America” as George Will (a prior rail supporter) described it in a spate of paranoia. Highways alone account for 70-100 percent of state transportation budgets -- a government run monopoly. If that isn't collectivism.....

______________

 

GOP moves to cut light-rail money

The plan would change the focus of transit from light rail and bus rapid transit to regular bus operations.

By PAT DOYLE, Star Tribune

Last update: March 22, 2011 - 6:18 AM

 

A major transportation funding bill pushed by GOP legislators that would divert money from light rail to Twin Cities buses advanced Monday night in the Minnesota House.

 

The bill would prohibit spending $69 million in a special transit fund on light rail, commuter rail and bus rapid transit, which uses dedicated lanes. The money comes from a quarter-cent sales tax imposed on five metro counties for rail and bus rapid transit.

 

The initiative, which passed the House Transportation Policy and Finance Committee on a mostly partisan vote and was sent to the Ways and Means Committee, underscores the division between some GOP legislators, long critical of rail transit, and DFLers who support such services in Minneapolis and St. Paul.

 

Instead of the $69 million being used over the next two years on rail or bus rapid transit, it would replace $51 million cut from general fund money for regular bus operations.

 

Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin, who runs an agency that distributes sales tax money for expanding transit, said the proposal would "steal local sales tax" money to help balance the state budget.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/118406964.html

 

________________________________

 

 

GOP bill would stop fast trains

House Republicans say the state should reject federal money for high-speed rail.

By Bruce Siceloff

[email protected]

Posted: Wednesday, Mar. 23, 2011

 

RALEIGH As the state Department of Transportation gears up to spend $461 million in federal grants for beefed-up train service from Charlotte to Raleigh, some Republican legislators say North Carolina should send the money back to Washington instead.

 

Rep. Ric Killian of Charlotte warned Tuesday that new passenger trains will hurt the state-owned N.C. Railroad and might saddle taxpayers unfairly with operation and maintenance costs.

 

"I just don't think we should be creating another unsustainable system for the citizens of North Carolina to bear the financial burden on," Killian said in an interview in his Legislative Building office.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/03/23/2164314/gop-bill-would-stop-fast-trains.html#ixzz1HWF38jEq

Great response to the crazies....

 

Posted at 3:30 PM ET, 03/ 3/2011

Can't I just be pro-transportation?

By Ezra Klein

 

It took me a few days to put my finger on what I found so strange about my colleague George Will’s take on trains. In Will’s view, support for high-speed rail is a “disorder [that] illuminates the progressive mind.” More specifically, “the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism. To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends.”

 

I think sensing socialism behind various preferences for rail policy says more about the speaker than those being spoken about. Take, well, me. My household owns a car. When it breaks down, we will purchase another car. And yet, I think it’d be good for this country to have better mass transit and better high-speed rail lines. Why? Well, my car is good for some things and bad for others. It’s good for going to get dinner in the suburbs, or furniture from Ikea. It’s bad for driving around Washington’s insanely crowded city streets during rush hour. It’s good for picking up a used chair I bought on 14th Street. It’s bad for driving to work, as parking costs $15 a day. It’s good for getting to places an hour or two away. It’s bad for getting to New York, as I don’t have a place to park, don’t want to drive while I’m there and would like to use my transit time to get some work done.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/03/cant_i_just_be_pro-transportat.html

^ A car is strong. Many cars are weak.

A train is strong. Many trains are stronger.

Conservatives home in on 'ObamaRail'

By Keith Laing - 03/26/11 04:32 PM ET

 

“ObamaRail” is fast becoming the new “ObamaCare” for many Republicans.

 

Conservative activists are deriding the high-speed rail proposals set out by President Obama in his State of the Union address and 2012 budget as wasteful spending that imposes new mandates on cash-strapped state governments.

 

....Millar noted that the federal push for high-speed rail began when President George W. Bush signed the Passenger Rail Investment Act, not when President Obama talked it up in his first State of the Union address.

 

“Republicans have a long history of supporting infrastructure projects,” he said. “I hope that doesn’t change.”

 

READ MORE AT:

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/railroads/152019-on-the-heels-of-obamacare-conservative-critics-target-obamarail

A rather lame pro-HSR editorial from USA Today (note the reference to HSR supporting itself)..... and a counterpoint from one of the "usual suspects" among the hit-men.:

 

Our view: Greenlight high-speed rail in dense corridors

Updated 11h 16m ago |

USA Today

 

Travelers in China, Japan, France and several other countries can hop onto sleek bullet trains and race between cities at 150 to 220 miles per hour, zipping past clogged highways and bypassing airport hassles. Picture that here. New York City to Washington, D.C., for example, now takes almost three hours, even on Amtrak's Acela. Imagine cutting that trip to, say, 90 minutes or less. Sweet.

 

Don't make any reservations yet, though. In the USA, long-promised high-speed rail projects have never left the station. Lately, President Obama and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood have been touting the economic benefits of a network of bullet train routes all around the country. But their campaign has slowed to a crawl, hobbled by budget worries, rejected by cost-conscious governors in Florida and Ohio, and mocked by critics who call "ObamaRail" nothing more than a bullet train to bankruptcy.

 

Full editorial at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-03-31-editorial31_ST_N.htm

 

Opposing view: Fast train to nowhere

By Robert W. Poole Jr.

The Reason Foundation

Updated 11h 28m ago |

 

Experts agree that the most successful rail corridors in Europe and Japan are those linking major cities 100 miles to 400 miles apart. What many studies neglect to mention, however, is that those cities are highly concentrated, with major fractions of their jobs in a traditional "central business district," unlike the large majority of decentralized U.S. metro areas. So most people there do want to go downtown-to-downtown, whereas most Americans need to travel suburb-to-suburb.

 

Countries such as France, Italy, Spain and Japan are also more attractive for high-speed rail because the cost of driving there is so much higher. Not only are gas taxes three to five times higher, but most of their intercity highways are toll roads. In addition, America has the world's most competitive airline markets, so our cost of flying is also lower.

 

Full Op-Ed Response at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-03-31-editorial31_ST1_N.htm

North Carolinians fight back....

 

CHARLOTTE OBSERVER EDITORIAL

 

Council should weigh in to support state rail plans

Charlotte legislator's bill to bar federal funds is short-sighted.

Posted: Sunday, Apr. 03, 2011

 

Monday, the Charlotte City Council will be asked to register opposition to a bill from a Charlotte legislator, Rep. Ric Killian, to stop the state from accepting millions in federal dollars to improve freight and passenger rail between Charlotte and Raleigh. The council should use high-speed voting on this one. Killian's bill would harm the state's future.

 

Contrary to popular perception, the money would do far more than merely shave 13 minutes off the Charlotte-Raleigh trip. It would make a series of significant transportation infrastructure improvements. It would also create an estimated 4,000 badly needed jobs.

 

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/04/03/2192429/council-should-weigh-in-to-support.html#ixzz1IYNTgTu6

A rather lame pro-HSR editorial from USA Today (note the reference to HSR supporting itself)..... and a counterpoint from one of the "usual suspects" among the hit-men.:

 

Our view: Greenlight high-speed rail in dense corridors

Updated 11h 16m ago |

USA Today

 

Travelers in China, Japan, France and several other countries can hop onto sleek bullet trains and race between cities at 150 to 220 miles per hour, zipping past clogged highways and bypassing airport hassles. Picture that here. New York City to Washington, D.C., for example, now takes almost three hours, even on Amtrak's Acela. Imagine cutting that trip to, say, 90 minutes or less. Sweet.

 

Don't make any reservations yet, though. In the USA, long-promised high-speed rail projects have never left the station. Lately, President Obama and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood have been touting the economic benefits of a network of bullet train routes all around the country. But their campaign has slowed to a crawl, hobbled by budget worries, rejected by cost-conscious governors in Florida and Ohio, and mocked by critics who call "ObamaRail" nothing more than a bullet train to bankruptcy.

 

Full editorial at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-03-31-editorial31_ST_N.htm

 

Opposing view: Fast train to nowhere

By Robert W. Poole Jr.

The Reason Foundation

Updated 11h 28m ago |

 

Experts agree that the most successful rail corridors in Europe and Japan are those linking major cities 100 miles to 400 miles apart. What many studies neglect to mention, however, is that those cities are highly concentrated, with major fractions of their jobs in a traditional "central business district," unlike the large majority of decentralized U.S. metro areas. So most people there do want to go downtown-to-downtown, whereas most Americans need to travel suburb-to-suburb.

 

Countries such as France, Italy, Spain and Japan are also more attractive for high-speed rail because the cost of driving there is so much higher. Not only are gas taxes three to five times higher, but most of their intercity highways are toll roads. In addition, America has the world's most competitive airline markets, so our cost of flying is also lower.

 

Full Op-Ed Response at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-03-31-editorial31_ST1_N.htm

 

Here is a letter I sent to USA Today in response:

 

To The editor, USA Today;

 

I am writing in response to your editorial of March 30, 2011 “In dense corridors, high-speed rail warrants a green light.” While a good commentary, the editorial misses several key points, namely energy efficiency, job creation and that people are already riding trains in droves.

 

Interestingly, the train shown in the picture runs on electricity, which can be provided from any source, unlike other modes, which depend on foreign oil. Even diesel powered trains are more efficient than other modes, according to Oak Ridge Laboratory studies.

 

We are about 5% of the world’s population, but consume 25% of the world’s oil and motorists use about half of the latter amount. We import about 2/3 of the oil we use from foreign countries, many of which are unstable or unfriendly. Common sense would dictate that we change our direction.

 

Passenger rail will be a huge generator of new employment. The Economic Development Research Group (EDRG) estimates that 24,000 jobs are created with each $1 billion of capital investment. By that measure, the $53 billion proposed by the Obama Administration for rail would create 1,272,000 jobs.

 

A third point is that the editorial misrepresents the facts about Amtrak. The statement “Amtrak loses so much is that politicians insist that it keep serving highly subsidized, sparsely traveled routes” flies in the face of reality. Amtrak’s revenue to loss ratio is about 74%, tops in the industry and it has been setting ridership records since 2003, with the exception of 2009, a recession year. It has broken records for the last 18 months in a row.

 

Amtrak carries about 28 million riders annually and could probably double that if it had more than a skeletal system. Other than a few corridors, most trains only run once a day and some only three times a week. A national rail system would create more employment and give Americans real choices in how they travel.

 

Turning to the rebuttal, “Fast train to nowhere” by Robert W. Poole, Jr. of the Heritage Foundation, we have misrepresentations stated as fact. Ever notice that they don’t go after highways with the same zeal as rail? If they followed the logic of their own arguments they’d be calling for toll roads, but they aren’t.

 

Highways only get about 60% of their funding from gas taxes and other user fees. The rest comes from taxpayers. Ditto aviation, where 50% of the costs of the air traffic control system comes from non-users. All forms of transportation are subsidized and yet the Heritage Foundation goes after rail as if it alone is responsible for all the ills of the world.

 

The Heritage Foundation and others like them are bankrolled by oil barons who have a vested interest in making sure we have to drive everywhere, even as gas prices continue to escalate.

However, we need to get off the oil standard and a part of that strategy should be the development of a comprehensive public transportation system, including passenger rail. Those who oppose rail for their own selfish gains are not acting in the national interest.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

I would loooovvvvveeee to have a bullet train in America but is it really feasible with our current land-use patterns? Japan has trains out of necessity. Look at the topography. Density was forced long before the bullet train.

I would loooovvvvveeee to have a bullet train in America but is it really feasible with our current land-use patterns? Japan has trains out of necessity. Look at the topography. Density was forced long before the bullet train.

 

That argument does not hold water. Ohio has the same population density as France, home of the 200 mph TGV.

It doesn't matter if Ohio has the same population density as France. Ohio doesn't have a city the size of Paris or the number of tourists/visitors from elsewhere. Plus I'd imagine it's already interlinked with other European countries. The real issue would be the density of population and employment centers at each station and the distance between those large nodes. A typical subdivision in America is a densely populated urbanixed area by the world's standards but offers no walkability or accessibility by anything other than an automobile. You're only looking at population density from a macro level and comparing a state to a country which makes no sense.

This is the argument that drives me nuts. The population density on a micro level is heavily influenced by the mode of transportation that was built to serve the macro level population. If we build a low-density mode of transportation like highways, we tend to get a low-density land-use pattern surrounding its access points. If we build a high-density mode of transportation like mass transit, we tend to get a high-density land-use pattern surrounding its access points.

 

Ohio had very dense cities built around its mass transit systems but we abandoned them for low-density highways and the population spread out accordingly. So when people say we don't have the population density for rail, that's malarkey. We do have it in Ohio, except that it was spread thin by a diversion of transportation public capital almost entirely to highways. It can and should be returned to denser agglomerations by balancing the public's capital investment in transportation so that maybe 10 percent (instead of the current 1 percent) of it goes to mass transit.

 

And if political leaders aren't willing to do that, then the problem isn't population density, it's a lack of political will -- as most of have said is the main problem all along. If population density was the justification for rail, we wouldn't have regional and intercity passenger rail services carrying full train loads of riders in Alaska, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, Utah and other places.

 

Not to mention Maine or Vermont.  :-D

I blame the Democrats (circa 1845). If only the Whig vision for America had come to fruition.

On this morning's Diane Rehm Show on NPR, a topic was the Southwest Airlines fuselage rupture and FAA issues related to it. Among the guests was Mary Schiavo, former inspector general for the US DOT.

 

During the call-in period, one caller tried to take the discussion off topic (a la UO forums), by asking why, considering all the safety issues and the cost of maintaining safety, the US wasn't investing more in alternative transportation, specifically HSR. Schiavo and one other guest launched into the hackneyed liturgy about the cost-effectiveness of subsidies for passenger trains and the mistaken notion that Americans love their cars, and so long as we have the option of good highway infrastructure we'll insist upon driving and wouldn't ride the trains if they were built. Schiavo cited the 3-C project as an example, and referred to those trains as High-Speed Rail.

 

http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=13913

On this morning's Diane Rehm Show on NPR, a topic was the Southwest Airlines fuselage rupture and FAA issues related to it. Among the guests was Mary Schiavo, former inspector general for the US DOT.

 

During the call-in period, one caller tried to take the discussion off topic (a la UO forums), by asking why, considering all the safety issues and the cost of maintaining safety, the US wasn't investing more in alternative transportation, specifically HSR. Schiavo and one other guest launched into the hackneyed liturgy about the cost-effectiveness of subsidies for passenger trains and the mistaken notion that Americans love their cars, and so long as we have the option of good highway infrastructure we'll insist upon driving and wouldn't ride the trains if they were built. Schiavo cited the 3-C project as an example, and referred to those trains as High-Speed Rail.

 

http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=13913

 

She's from Ohio and is a noted air safety critic, but she obviously doesn't know beans about rail.

 

  "So when people say we don't have the population density for rail, that's malarkey."

 

  Ok, we don't have the population density for rail today.

 

    We had it at one time. We might have it in the future. But we don't have it today.

If a state like North Carolina can make rail work, then so can we. 

The argument over population density is nothing more than a baseless "red herring" raised by critics.  If states like Maine, Vermont, North Carolina and Missouri can not only successfully support passenger rail operations...but expand them..... the claim of "lack of population density" is exposed for what it is.... utterly false.

 

The problem we are dealing with are rail critics, most with little or no background in the subject, who really don't give a damn if their claims are the verbal equivalent of manure.  They will purposefully spew these statements, because they know the average person will likely accept it as fact because the spewer represents some "think tank" or.... that the average person doesn't have time to check out whether what they are being told is even remotely factual.

 

That's why the job of passenger rail advocacy is a full-time effort.

 

  "So when people say we don't have the population density for rail, that's malarkey."

 

  Ok, we don't have the population density for rail today.

 

    We had it at one time. We might have it in the future. But we don't have it today.

 

Again, it's malarkey, because population density is mostly the result of prior human activity and investment. The argument by Studebaker President Paul Hoffman in 1939 was that American cities had TOO MUCH DENSITY for cars to achieve the level of popularity he and other automakers wanted. Since the design of cities are more the result of decisions by humans, these powerbrokers sought to exert their influence to redesign cities for their own benefit. What was done can be undone. And in my opinion, it should be undone to restore a greater sense of community, enhance this visually rewarding aspects of a built environment and to reduce our vulnerability to declines in oil supplies, especially from a rapid decline in net exports.

The issue of density shouldn't maater much, you're right. What, with all the real estate and mortgage companies affiliated with All Aboard Ohio. Hah. I thought it was just oil barons involved in urban policy.

Really? That's what you're shoveling? Private investment follows public investment. End of story.

It makes no difference to me as long as they don't pull a Metro Moves and give us a proposal like the one in Metro Cincinnati with 6 stops in Blue Ash which would encourage sprawl and a lot of Park and Rides. Excuse me for questioning motives and pointing out that oil barons aren't the only ones investing in legislation.

What's this?  I don't know anything about this Cincinnati issue you're talking about, but for a lot of our existing suburban infrastructure (not just in Cincinnati), park and rides are likely the only way to make trains work in the suburbs.  (Even NYC has park and rides in its outlying areas, though they're admittedly more "outlying" than here.)  No matter where you put any train station in Dublin or Westerville or Pickerington, there simply won't be enough people within walking distance.  The land use pattern there is already largely set, and it will only change over an extremely long timeframe (generations, really).

When is land use ever "set"? Just in my lifetime so far (43 years), I have seen dramatic changes in land use in a low/no-growth Northeast Ohio. Imagine if Northeast Ohio was medium- or high-growth region.

Do you really think that if you plopped a train station down at Dublin Jerome High School or thereabouts (pick any similarly generic high-end yuppie high school in any similarly generic high-end yuppie suburb if you're more familiar with a different metro ... Chagrin Falls, maybe?  No idea.), that people would bulldoze the existing McMansions there in order to build high-density developments around the train station?

I think if you put a train station in downtown Wyoming or Mariemont you'd get some dense TOD.

Do you really think that if you plopped a train station down at Dublin Jerome High School or thereabouts (pick any similarly generic high-end yuppie high school in any similarly generic high-end yuppie suburb if you're more familiar with a different metro ... Chagrin Falls, maybe?  No idea.), that people would bulldoze the existing McMansions there in order to build high-density developments around the train station?

 

OK, I'll play along with this extreme example. I don't know of too many railroad lines built through the grounds of a high school, but I suspect that if we stopped investing in highways and started investing in mass transit, Dublin might not be as wealthy of a community in my lifetime. And that high school might not stay open for the same reason that urban schools have had to close. That's the function of land use changes as a result of a wholesale change in transportation investment. I don't know if that would happen again, but as we know, it's happened before. And do you think that a group of McMansions could not be demolished for any reason? Ask yourself this: Why have we demolished groups of homes in the recent past? But I do see we are entering a period of remarkable change. It's just taking a little longer for America to recognize it.

 

Consider these investments, look at their surroundings, and tell me if you think those surroundings will look the same in 5, 10, 15 years from now....

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here they mapped out what a totally new town built around a station would look like just in case imagining the future isn't your thing...

 

  "I suspect that if we stopped investing in highways and started investing in mass transit.."

 

    Now you're talking. In my humble opinion, rail is fighting an uphill battle against highways as long as highways have a healthy funding source and rail has almost nothing. Contractors go after highway work instead of rail work because that's where the money is. Developers build around highways instead of railroads because that's where the money is.  All of this highway bashing is irrelevant, as long as highways have a source of funding and rail doesn't.

 

 

I agree with 8th & State about the funding issue; the dedicated revenue stream is a shell game (since at the end of the day, it's not really as segregated from the general fund as its defenders might claim), but an important one nevertheless.

 

KJP: I have no idea what most of those pictures you posted are, but I'll go along with you and say that no, I don't believe that any of those places will look the same in five or twenty years.  What's the point?  It does not change the fact that you simply will never have a political consensus in favor of a change in policy that will deliberately and knowingly impoverish Dublin, the prospect of which above you sounded all too chipper about.

 

With a park and ride system, Dublin could actually participate meaningfully in a regional mass transit system without demolishing peoples' homes.  I was stunned to see the hostility to such systems from the last several posters.  I had always assumed as a matter of course that such things would be an essential and efficient part of integrating the suburbs into rail-based transit.  Where there's still undeveloped land, or land where large numbers of parcels can be assembled economically (inner-ring brownfields/brownstones, for example), of course I support TOD, but pushing for bulldozing and starting afresh is a fool's errand, especially in places with nicer homes.  (And yes, I know you're about to say that you don't think those homes are that nice, but you need to develop enough empathy to appreciate that others disagree with that, and will defend those opinions at the ballot box, when push comes to shove.)

Maybe it's just me, but I think the point a lot of posters are missing is that what needs to be advocated is an intergrated transportation system for moving people.

 

Intercity passenger rail, regional commuter rail, local light rail and/or streetcar systems that are either in existence or planned (including Ohio's politically-aborted 3C plan) are created to integrate with highways and local streets and the systems that go with them (local bus transit systems, taxis, bikeways, sidewalks. Rail integrates well whether it is in a central urban, suburban or exurban setting.

 

Doubt it?  Look at how well-integrated our nation moves freight.... by sea or air on the international level, by rail, truck or barge on the transcontinental to regional to local level.  All of the major railroads are heavily committed to intermodal movement of freight containers and bulk commodities like grain, coal, oil, ethanol, etc.

 

But when it comes to moving people, we (as a society) seem to either have a mental block about how rail-based transportation can mix well with our use of cars, buses, bicycling or walking...... or we accept (with little or no question) the verbal manure spread by critics who blithely issue statements about "population density" or how pasenger rail "doesn't support itself".

 

With oil and gasoline prices again making upward leaps, we can still move freight with an array of options. But when it comes to moving people, most of us in Ohio are left with few or no options to reaching for the car keys.  If our communities have a local transit system, it is most likely underfunded and (thus) less able to meet the market's mobility demands. The only expection being Cleveland, which does have a rail-based "Rapid" system that integrates reasonably well with other modes.

 

 

noozer +1

 

  Noozer - I like to use the example of the Delta Train at the Greater Cincinnati Airport. (We forget that we actually do have a rail system!)

 

    The Delta train is well used, generally by people of middle to upper class incomes who certainly own cars. They use it because it is convenient, clean, and safe.

 

    The reason why the rail proponents are viewed as "cultist" is because for the most part, the rail proponents are asking the electorate (which is mostly drivers) to approve a new source of funding for rail, and when the electorate questions why they should support rail, the rail proponents start preaching about things that the electorate doesn't know or care about.

 

    What the rail proponents generally lack is a viable business model. I know - no form of transportation turns a profit, blah blah blah. I didn't say it had to. What it needs is a viable source of funding, whether it be from fares, tax revenue, advertising, commisions, or some combination of sources.

 

  Delta pays for the Delta train, I presume, from a portion of ticket prices. They may have gotten some government funding also - I don't know. It helps that the Delta train is driverless, which cuts down on expenses tremendously.

 

    If you think about it, elevators in skyscrapers are not that much different technically from streetcars. Both run on rails. I presume that elevator service is usually included with the building rent. I know of at least one elevator that charges a fare.  Most elevators are driverless.

 

    I don't have the answer, but I have some ideas. How about intitiating a rail transit system integrated with park and ride lots, and charge for parking? How about renting out space in a high-traffic station to vendors? I noticed in Europe that many of the larger train stations have shopping similar to an American shopping mall integrated into the station - I presume that the rent helps subsidize the rail service. In America, most airports are integrated with shopping malls, though we don't necesarly name it that.

 

    Many of the historic streetcar lines were partly funded by land developers who built homes in the suburbs. Many historic streetcar lines were also integrated with resorts or amusement parks. I know of at least one railroad in Cincinnati that was funded by a single wealthy resident who wanted to be able to commute from his country home to the city.

 

    In any case, the preaching is growing tiresome. No one asked the electorate to fund the Delta train. Delta just did it.

 

   

Really, you are using an airport people mover, really.

^What's wrong with that? It's functional.

Do you really think that if you plopped a train station down at Dublin Jerome High School or thereabouts (pick any similarly generic high-end yuppie high school in any similarly generic high-end yuppie suburb if you're more familiar with a different metro ... Chagrin Falls, maybe?  No idea.), that people would bulldoze the existing McMansions there in order to build high-density developments around the train station?

 

OK, I'll play along with this extreme example. I don't know of too many railroad lines built through the grounds of a high school, but I suspect that if we stopped investing in highways and started investing in mass transit, Dublin might not be as wealthy of a community in my lifetime. And that high school might not stay open for the same reason that urban schools have had to close. That's the function of land use changes as a result of a wholesale change in transportation investment. I don't know if that would happen again, but as we know, it's happened before. And do you think that a group of McMansions could not be demolished for any reason? Ask yourself this: Why have we demolished groups of homes in the recent past? But I do see we are entering a period of remarkable change. It's just taking a little longer for America to recognize it.

 

Consider these investments, look at their surroundings, and tell me if you think those surroundings will look the same in 5, 10, 15 years from now....

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here they mapped out what a totally new town built around a station would look like just in case imagining the future isn't your thing...

 

I could design a theoretical town just like that one, built around a train station. Renderings like that are an attempt to sell a dream; they rarely come to fruition like that.

David, sadly your can't do/can't be response has become typical of Americans. True, they rarely happen in America because we forgot how to build big. That town is being built on the new line to Hokkaido from Aomori. The town is near Hakodate. Similar cities and new sections of cities have popped up like weeds around stations on new high-speed rail and regional rail lines in South Korea, China, Southeast Asia, Middle East, Europe and Canada. Here's some interesting examples....

 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1352375

 

http://www.fastcompany.com/pics/calatravas-new-train-station-and-8-more-high-speed-rail-hubs-horizon (note the new station being built for the new Tanggu District near Beijing)

 

http://www.colliersmn.com/prod/colliersnews.nsf/view/720FBEC36EC605E08525762E0014AEAB (Note that there are FIVE new cities being built in around high-speed rail in the Wuxi region near Shanghai)

 

Then there are new-towns in Spain built around new railways, like Pocerolandia and Ciudad Valdeluz. The towns started construction just before the recession but stopped, leaving unfinished towns...

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=18834213

 

And I wouldn't be surprised to see new towns built around stations on the new high-speed lines under construction in Saudi Arabia and in Morocco, considering how fast their economies are growing.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/haramain-high-speed-rail-station-construction-contracts-signed.html

 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=538347&page=5

The "hit men" lose a round....

 

 

N.C. GOP abandons hope of killing high-speed railBy Bruce Siceloff

Staff writer

Posted: Saturday, Apr. 09, 2011

 

A Republican push to reject $461 million in federal railroad improvement grants for North Carolina appears to have collapsed.

 

The high-speed rail kill bill championed by Rep. Ric Killian of Charlotte was pulled Friday from the agenda of the House Transportation Committee, which had been scheduled to vote on the measure next week. Killian's bill was attacked at this week's committee meeting by Democrats, mayors and business advocates.

 

The Charlotte Business Journal reports that another Mecklenburg County Republican, Sen. Bob Rucho of Matthews, said at a Charlotte business meeting Friday that GOP leaders agreed that North Carolina should keep the $545 million in high-speed and intercity passenger rail grants awarded in early 2010 by the Obama administration.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/04/09/2211399/nc-gop-abandons-hope-of-killing.html#ixzz1JEiwny00

I think that when the highway construction comes to the aid of a rail project, it's tough for even the most ideologically driven people to fight it. And I suspect that will be the case as fewer highway projects can be afforded due to declining gas tax revenues. Lord knows we need to rebuild our wretched roads, yet we keep spending big bucks on new lane-miles...

It appears the key in North Carolina was having business people come out against killing rail in the state.  We need the business community to step up to the plate in Ohio-- big time. 

 

It appears the key in North Carolina was having business people come out against killing rail in the state.  We need the business community to step up to the plate in Ohio-- big time.

 

+1

 

I wonder if there was something different about the rail proposal in NC that caused the business community there to warm to it more than Ohio's ... or if the larger difference is in the states' business communities rather than their rail proposals.  It's depressing that Ohio can't seem to get traction for rail at any level--local streetcars, suburban light rail (the Rapid as a meager possible exception that more proves the rule), or intercity passenger rail.

Might it be because NC does not have the city/suburb animosity Ohio has? Business leaders tend to be suburbanites, so they are prone to side with suburban interests in Ohio.

On what basis do you say that the political divide between cities and suburbs in NC is less than Ohio's?  NC has a lot of sprawl, too, and that's where a lot of the wealth is.

If anything, NC tends to lean to the more conservative side (both among Dems & the GOP), which make the story all the more interesting.  But they also have an active an engaged DOT that views passenger rail and local transit as a transportation asset and not an appendage...and there lies a big difference between Ohio and NC.

There's also a lot of transplants from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, etc. in North Carolina who, even if relatively conservative, are likely to have some experience with the benefits of transit.  That probably reflects itself in some of the elected officials, appointees, and business leaders.  Plus there's the advantage that "new south" states have an attitude of "we want it all, we want to be the best."  Compare that to much of the midwest where the prevailing attitude is "we're not good enough."

Most importantly, NC has been able to build success on success with their passenger rail program.  It is much harder for critics to spew their usual and unsubstantiated statements (as they did in Ohio), because the advantages of passenger rail in North Carolina are not only self-evident, but completely contradict the critics.