Congressman Wants High Speed Rail Through Lakewood!

[Bill Call]

Kill his idea before it goes any further:

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf ... k_lak.html

[Matt Jones]

Huh?

This appears to be a proposed (and much-needed) upgrade of the existing service on the Lake Shore Limited, which last time I checked did not run through Lakewood...

[Bryan Schwegler]

Bill what benefit is it to kill this idea? Are you saying you don't think a high speed rail corridor linking New York, Cleveland, and Chicago would be at all beneficial?

Or are you just generally anti-rail?

I truly wonder what all the Kasich anti-rail, anti public transit people, will be thinking 50 years from now when we start running out of oil.

This proposal is actually a very smart, bipartisan effort by our congressional delegation. Not sure exactly what you see that is so bad about it.

[Stan Austin]

Several Sundays ago I was watching an episode of Rick Steve's travel show. This particular show focused on the logistics of traveling by rail in Europe - buying tickets, reading the schedules, planning a trip through several countries.
It really demonstrated the freedom and ease of travel in Europe with its extensive railroad network.
That same weekend, Gov. (let's go backward) Kasich announced his cancellation of the Cleve Cinci high speed rail.
At least this Lake Shore Line proposal keeps alive the possibility that Ohio will enter the 21st century.
Stan Austin

[Will Brown]

Several Sundays ago I was watching an episode of Rick Steve's travel show. This particular show focused on the logistics of traveling by rail in Europe - buying tickets, reading the schedules, planning a trip through several countries.
It really demonstrated the freedom and ease of travel in Europe with its extensive railroad network.
That same weekend, Gov. (let's go backward) Kasich announced his cancellation of the Cleve Cinci high speed rail.
At least this Lake Shore Line proposal keeps alive the possibility that Ohio will enter the 21st century.
Stan Austin

Or the nineteenth century, if you know about the interurban lines.

I'm not sure Rick Steeves is a reliable source, many of his shows are quite old. And I'm not sure that Europe is a good comparison, as it is rather compact, while we are spread out.

In any event, Europe enjoys(?) the advantage of relatively few private cars, and astonishingly high gasoline prices. Perhaps if we had those here, trains would be more viable. But in recent years, Europe has seen many low-cost airlines crop up to compete with the trains, and I notice that the trains now are less full than they were a few years ago.

My criticism is that the US advocates of train travel never look at the whole picture; they are like kids hoping Santa Clause will bring them a model train set. I think before sinking trillions of dollars in high speed rail, we should have a plan to decrease car use, and plane use (planes are high polluting inefficient machines), but there is no support for such a dramatic change. I saw an internet news item that Biden said we were going to spend $50 Billion on high speed rail, but the item quickly disappeared and I didn't see any reference to it in the newspapers the next day, so perhaps it was a hoax, although it seemed typical that a politician would want to spend $50 Billion (which would hardly provide a complete functional system) while our country flounders under masses of debt that promise to grow tremendously.

The idea that running out of oil will force us to use trains is an oversimplification. Trains in the US run on diesel (derived from oil); most trains in Europe run on electricity, but you still need a source of electricity, whether it is fossil fuels, nuclear, or sporadic wind and solar power.

[Bryan Schwegler]

I think the increasingly rising costs, inconveniences, and over sold planes will eventually cause a major decrease in air travel. They're doing it to themselves. To me, this would be the perfect opportunity for true high speed rail to become a reality. I'd much rather take a high speed train to NYC than to go through the hassle of flying.

[Gary Rice]

I'm kinda open to all sides here...to a point...

Taking the politics out of this one for a moment, (as if that were even possible )

I think at the heart of the problem with new technologies (that many, if not most of us, think might actually be great ideas) would be that many of these are just not presently $elf-$ustaining enough.

I think that you would need to have some sort of gargantuan seismic shift in economic variables, (like the price of gas) in order to entice more rail customers. Remember too, that Europe is relatively small compared to us, and having a much more historically developed passenger rail service (and much higher fuel prices for their cars).

When Europeans get off their trains and arrive at their destination, they are often within short walking (or taxi) distance of where they need to be. America, on the other hand is just so BIG. No matter how many rail services there were, you would probably need a car after you arrived, wherever you were going anyway.

Would an increased national high speed rail service be great? I think so, but I think too, that if it were thought to be a profitable enterprise by American business interests, it would already have been done long ago. The same is true with some of the other new technological incentives. When the time is right for wind, solar, and alternative sources of energy to turn a profit for American business, I think you'll see them happen so fast it will make your head spin.

The real question, in my mind, would be how much are we willing to publicly subsidize new technology until it can stand on its own two feet?

As for me, I'm a little tired of paying out of my own pocket so that others can find out whether new stuff will work good enough so that private investors will start thinking about when and whether it MIGHT be profitable to them one day.

When the market's ready, I suspect that it will take care of itself. This I do believe. Let those who want all this new-fangled stuff put their own speculation money into it, so far as I'm concerned.

They can have their dreams. Just let me have mine too, thank you.

That's why I play a banjo and not some kind of space-stringed "future-tar".

Better get on back to it...Springtime's just around the corner.

[ryan costa]

there are few things more intensely and broadly subsidized than the American motorist.
the airline industry itself enjoys massive security subsidies, safety regulation. the american aerospace industry would about disappear without the give government contracts.
that is okay. that is the socialism Americans want. don't worry. maybe fuel will only get cheaper and more plentiful.

[Bill Call]

Huh?

This appears to be a proposed (and much-needed) upgrade of the existing service on the Lake Shore Limited, which last time I checked did not run through Lakewood...

Maybe, but the article didn't mention the Lake Shore Limited. It only mentioned a high speed rail along Lake Erie.

It's never to early to fight another freeway through Lakewood.

[Bryan Schwegler]

Huh?

This appears to be a proposed (and much-needed) upgrade of the existing service on the Lake Shore Limited, which last time I checked did not run through Lakewood...

Maybe, but the article didn't mention the Lake Shore Limited. It only mentioned a high speed rail along Lake Erie.

It's never to early to fight another freeway through Lakewood.

Yes, let's outlaw cars while we're at it. Oh, and let's build a wall around Lakewood and shoot people that try to cross.

[michael gill]

The U.S. is indeed more spread out.

However: The distance between Paris and Rome is 694 miles.

The distance between New York and Chicago is 711 miles.

When we're talking about linking major cities, does anyone really think the "spread out" argument holds up?

[Matt Jones]

It's never to early to fight another freeway through Lakewood.

There would be serious logistical concerns with running a true high-speed line along the Lakewood tracks, not the least of which would be eliminating (or at least substantially upgrading) all of the at-grade crossings. And I would think a significant amount of additional right-of-way would be needed. I just can't see any way that it would be the route chosen, given the availability of other more protected rail corridors heading west from Cleveland and considering how difficult and expensive it would be to retrofit the Lakewood corridor.

Commuter rail, however, is a whole different story....

[Will Brown]

The U.S. is indeed more spread out.

However: The distance between Paris and Rome is 694 miles.

The distance between New York and Chicago is 711 miles.

When we're talking about linking major cities, does anyone really think the "spread out" argument holds up?

I'm pretty sure you cannot get from Paris to Rome on high speed rail, or at least not at high speed. They slow down considerably for the Alps. You could look it up.

And a more appropriate comparison would be from New York to Los Angeles, a bit farther than most European trips. And given our record of building cheaply and maintaining poorly, I'd be reluctant to take high speed rail, or to live near its right of way.

I still like train travel, but it is not economically viable today. and why would it be viable tomorrow, when we will be telecommuting?

[michael gill]

When we're talking about Chicago east to cities in Ohio, PA, and New York, I can't figure out in what sense New York to LA is a more appropriate comparison.

Approximately 700 miles to New York from Chicago is comparable to approximately 700 miles from Paris to Rome. That is an example from the place where we say rail works because cities are closer together. But in the American northeast and these parts of the industrial midwest, distances are comparable. There are major cities at either end and along the route.

In what sense is a trip of four times that length a more appropriate comparison? I appreciate that you don't think we should spend money on infrastructure, and that you have safety concerns because you don't trust American manufacturing. But my point is about the proximity of cities, which between Chicago and New York is virtually identical with the cited european capitals.

In what sense is New York to LA a better comparison? I just don't know what you're getting at.

[J Hrlec]

Why would we want a high speed rail... I thought we would want people to be able to see the splendor of Lakewood, not a blur at XXX MPH.