The Observation Deck

michael gill wrote: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.

I think if you don't want to get it, you won't.

If we are talking about a federal project, I think we cannot limit it to a few areas. If we are all going to pay for it, we should all benefit, and it was in the sense of a national system that I feel that New York to Los Angeles is more appropriate than between some relatively close cities you cherry picked. Why not New York to Newark or Philadelphia if you want.

Incidentally, the "high speed" rail you so like takes between 10 and 12 hours to get from Paris to Rome. Assuming your mileages are correct, that is about 65 miles per hour. I drive faster than that. Actually, I would take that train, because I like riding on trains, the stations are right downtown, and I have a lot of time; I would guess that most people would fly.

I didn't cherry pick, Will.

This is from the story: "A bipartisan group of northern Ohio Congress members met Thursday with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to discuss building a high speed rail line along Lake Erie that would link Cleveland with Chicago, Detroit, Toledo and Buffalo, and also include routes to Youngstown and Pittsburgh. Building a line along the lake is a top tier part of Obama's rail program.

Those are the cities that started this thread.

700 miles is 700 miles, whether you're in Europe or the US.

Don't assume my mileage is correct; check it yourself.

If you don't trus American manufacturing, that's fine. If you don't want to spend money, I understand. Money's tight. It's nice that you like trains. But this thread started because of a story about a line to run between CHicago and Buffalo, NY. I didn't cherry pick the cities. And the distances in this case are almost identical to the distances between those european cities. Indeed, they are quite a bit less because Pgh and Buffalo are quite a bit closer to Chicago than Manhattan--the source for my mileage figure--is.

Bryan Schwegler wrote: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.

The idea is anything but smart.

These people say it better than me:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/01/rober ... high-speed

People who push trains to Chicago wouldn't be caught dead on a bus to Chicago. Why is that? The bus is cheaper, more energy efficient and in most cases much faster plus the bus routes can change as population patterns change.

I'm especially opposed to a commuter train through Lakewood.

The dirty little secret of the Plain Dealers positive spin on downtown development is that all the downtown development is non-profit, taxpayer financed and supported. Private buildings all over the downtown area are vacant, abandoned and in foreclosure. Private employment has collapsed. Those downtown jobs aren't coming back just because we build another freeway through Lakewood.

A commuter train through this City will simply provide joy rides for the residents of Lorain County on their way to a ball game. It will do nothing for this City.

On the other hand, if such a rail service had four stops in Lakewood and provided $100 million for development in Lakewood I might reconsider. But another Freeway Through the City? Include me out!

Except there you go complaining about Clevelqnd or Regionalism again when this has nothing to do with it. Nor is what being proposed a commuter rail service. Oh and where in any of this did it say the line would run through Lakewood?

Also, let me clear up your right-wing anti-train media misconception. Buses are not more energy efficient nor are they faster than high speed rail. and sure population shifts, but no where near as drastically as you make it out.

So let's stick the the truth and the facts of the story in your original post.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:Except there you go complaining about Clevelqnd or Regionalism again when this has nothing to do with it. Nor is what being proposed a commuter rail service. Oh and where in any of this did it say the line would run through Lakewood?

Also, let me clear up your right-wing anti-train media misconception. Buses are not more energy efficient nor are they faster than high speed rail. and sure population shifts, but no where near as drastically as you make it out.

So let's stick the the truth and the facts of the story in your original post.

The truth is:

All of these issues are inter-related.

I'm not complaining about Cleveland I'm just pointing out that the downtown business climate is awful and it is not going to get any better.

Regionalism as it is currently practiced is the diffusion of population and economic activitity to areas further and further from the central core and

That those actions are part of a deliberate policy, a policy that does great harm to cities like Lakewood and

Ideas like commuter rail service would do nothing to restore the central core and

Would actually damge the economy of Lakewood and

Too the extent that heavily subsidized rail service reduces money available for other needs and to the extent that such a line through Lakewood would damage the quality of like in Lakewood the truth of it is:

I thought it would be a good idea to point out that I think it is a bad idea before people assume silence is acceptance.

Ok Bill but read the story again. This is not about commuter rail service. It's about interstate transportation.

You claim things are inter-related, but they only become so when twist them so out of context that they don't even resemble the truth of what's happening. And you keep claiming this is going through Lakewood, when no where does it say that nor in all likelihood would it.

I mean you sound as if we should bulldoze the airport and tear up the highways to prevent anyone from coming or going. Is that what you really want? I'm also curious why you feel the need to make up facts related to this? It's almost comical if it wasn't so disturbing.

The world isn't so scary nor is it so miserable if you stop looking for things to make it that way.