The Observation Deck

Am I missing something? I don't get to read or watch the news much since I started my job but why is our governor giving back all that money that was fought for instead of building the train? I read the myths and facts in the PD today and it makes zero sense. What this could provide to so many in Ohio is amazing and I am devastated we are giving the money to another state to use. I guess next on his agenda will be derailing unions and schools regardless of the impact on the students and taxpayers.

What article did you see? The one I read in the 12/10 PD was light on facts. About the only fact cited was that $400 million in federal funds would not be spent in Ohio on high speed rail development. It did also mention $1.1 billion of federal funds were provided for other transportation improvements. Everything else; projected jobs, projected job losses, initial speeds, projected future speeds, is very speculative (at best).

Maybe the $1.1 billion is the problem. Doesn't pouring $1.1 billion into other transportation projects, on top of state, county and local dollars tell you that we are car, truck, plane centered society?

If rail transportation of any speed is to take hold, it's going to take tons more than $400 million to revamp how we think of travel and to retool not only the rails but transportation at the end points throughout the suburban sprawl too.

Maybe that's the real reason the incoming governor is abandoning the project.

Because our future governor comes from the same "future thinking" GOP that ran this state into the ground over the last 20 years.

Their "vision" for Ohio hasn't worked yet, not expecting it to work under Kasich.

Kasich wants to keep the funding, but not rebuild the rail capacity.

America lost most of its rail capacity over the last 70 years. We had a lot of oil, and subsidized a lot of roadbuilding. it was the socialism everyone wanted. it generated a lot of wealth and fun and comfort.

Henry Ford struck upon the genius idea of not selling cars for gold coins.(he would not have sold many otherwise).

folks thinking about the future realize gasoline and alternative fuels will cost a lot more in the future. so we gotta rebuild the rail capacity we tore down when fuel was cheap.

We were once progressive with our rail system to other countries and have fallen far behind, like in other areas. We won't have industrialization to get us out of many of our self-inflicted problems. Third world countries have industrialized all those products we are dependent on. Other than freedom of speech to yell at everyone who doesn't believe what we believe like so many do, what will we have here to set us apart from other countries? With casinos as our next hope for jobs, we certainly need more substance, more growth in the right areas and a lot less freedom of speech in our civil war of attacks every time someone has an opinion.

If we want to make trains a viable method of transportation, we have to make them more attractive than cars. The problem is that as a nation, we are addicted to cars. Perhaps we in Lakewood don't appreciate the extent of that addiction, because we are living in a cramped environment where walking is viable, if not popular. If you look at the newer suburbs and cities, they are absolutely not walkable, and thus mass transportation is not viable when a car is more convenient and cheaper. People in communities as near as North Olmsted could not get food for their families without a car.

I don't think you can just build a nice train and expect it to be successful. You first have to attack the addiction. If we put draconian taxes on the use of cars, such as $8 on a gallon of gas, $12 a day on parking spaces (used or unused), and $2000 a year for registering a car, most people would realize the economic advantage of public transportation, and would clamor for and use public transportation. Parking lots and spaces would disappear. Car sales would plummet. Alas, in a democracy, any office holder who advocated such measures would be ousted immediately.

Europe, which has much better public transportation, did not come to it voluntarily. They were destroyed in WWII and put their money into rebuilding the infrastructure. No one bought cars, because none were being made, so it was easy to install high taxes on gas, since no one's ox was being gored. Because of the high price of gas and parking, they developed small efficient cars; we laughed at them, but they are laughing now.

With office holders who think the only solution to problems is to spend more money, all this advocacy for trains will produce nothing but more debt, and a few trains that will travel emptily. One cannot expect leaders who have extended unemployment benefits to over two years, to have the courage to fight our national addiction to the car.

I would have liked to see them invest in the Rapid more. Clean it up, extend the lines, make it way more useful. Put part of it underground to add more stops all around downtown. Overall that would have been a much better use of $400 million than the 3C project.

That money was already alloted. It will now be spent in another state, just not Ohio. I have read no proof that it would have cost the taxpayers any money while building it. And what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Do you help fight the addiction by offering a better way? There are many people without cars in this economy. Many young people college and otherwise. I think the train would have helped the economy in the major cities by making travelling affordable and easy throughout our state. This was not a democratic decision and a lot of time went into it to have it thrown away by our new governor.

As for unemployment, I do agree many took/take advantage of the extended time/money. It should be done on a more individual basis with proof of job seeking. I know of professionals who worked for years for their company only to get laid off. One friend worked for a school for fifteen years under a grant only to get laid off. She has sent resumes everywhere but can't find a job in her field. I also know of some who get laid off and don't look at all for another job so I feel both sides of that argument. Regardless, unemployment money does keep the economy going whether we like it or not.

Will Brown wrote:If we want to make trains a viable method of transportation, we have to make them more attractive than cars. The problem is that as a nation, we are addicted to cars. Perhaps we in Lakewood don't appreciate the extent of that addiction, because we are living in a cramped environment where walking is viable, if not popular. If you look at the newer suburbs and cities, they are absolutely not walkable, and thus mass transportation is not viable when a car is more convenient and cheaper. People in communities as near as North Olmsted could not get food for their families without a car.

I don't think you can just build a nice train and expect it to be successful. You first have to attack the addiction. If we put draconian taxes on the use of cars, such as $8 on a gallon of gas, $12 a day on parking spaces (used or unused), and $2000 a year for registering a car, most people would realize the economic advantage of public transportation, and would clamor for and use public transportation. Parking lots and spaces would disappear. Car sales would plummet. Alas, in a democracy, any office holder who advocated such measures would be ousted immediately.

Europe, which has much better public transportation, did not come to it voluntarily. They were destroyed in WWII and put their money into rebuilding the infrastructure. No one bought cars, because none were being made, so it was easy to install high taxes on gas, since no one's ox was being gored. Because of the high price of gas and parking, they developed small efficient cars; we laughed at them, but they are laughing now.

With office holders who think the only solution to problems is to spend more money, all this advocacy for trains will produce nothing but more debt, and a few trains that will travel emptily. One cannot expect leaders who have extended unemployment benefits to over two years, to have the courage to fight our national addiction to the car.

My complaint with the Ohio rail proposal was that it would be barely faster than driving (topping out at, what, 79mph?) and a lot more inconvenient than the 'on-demand' (for lack of a better term) potential of the car.

That said, I disagree with your initial premise: If we want to make trains a viable method of transportation, we have to make them more attractive than cars.

I think if passenger trains are going to be viable in the future, they should be as alternatives to airplanes, not cars. France, China, Japan and many other Old World countries have high-speed rail systems. Japan's Shinkansen lines run at speeds over 160mph. That's Cleveland to Columbus in less than an hour. A little over 2 hours to Chicago.
Now, that's if its commercially viable. I don't want my tax dollars getting flushed into another Amtrak.

I agree with that statement and would much prefer to take a nice train with the family versus a plane any day.

In places where the high speed trains exist, they are on limited routes, and do not always travel at the advertised speed. I think if you looked at a train schedule from France, for example, you would find you can't get to most places on the high speed trains, and on lines that offer regular train service and high speed train service, the high speed train would get you somewhere in two hours, while the regular train would get you there in two hours and fifteen minutes. Big deal. I don't even bother looking at which type of train I am picking; I look for a departure time that is convenient.

Putting in high speed rail service is expensive beyond comprehension. You are all whining for the government to do it, probably because the private railroads, who do know how to run a railroad, won't do it because it is not viable. AMTREK doesn't even own a mile of track; they run on borrowed track. And even a 200 mph train to Columbus would not be competitive with the speed of a plane.

As for commuter rail (the subject of this thread) the competition would not be with planes, as we have virtually no commuter planes (some places, like NYC, do have commuter air traffic). The biggest question to me is why RTA doesn't make more with its light rail line. And the answer is that so many of us have cars and are willing to pay a little more for what we view as the convenience of using our cars. That stands in sharp contrast to comparable situations in Europe, where the cost of commuting with a car is far, far higher than taking a metro, and where the trains run more frequently, and to more places.

We travel regularly to San Diego. By plane, it is about 7 hours. I once looked at AMTREK and it was about 5 days. I doubt they will ever even approach that being a 1 day train ride. Judging by the lack of crowds at the train stations, most of us prefer the speed of flying to the comfort of a much slower vehicle.

Don't misread me. I prefer trains to cars, but around here the train service is not good, and there is no hope of increasing the customer base, and hence the service, until we cure the addiction to cars.

We also travel fro Los Angeles to San Diego. Our last time we went by train, rather than plane, in part because there is a train station close to my son's home in San Diego, so he wouldn't have to go so far to pick us up. Since the good hands people at TSA don't have much, if any, presence at train stations, we didn't have all the delay inherent in getting on a plane these days. The scenery from the train was quite nice, and the trip at far fewer mph actually took less time. It would be nice if that was the situation everywhere, but I recall that the train car had only three people in it, so I doubt it was profitable. And I don't want the government to spend money it doesn't have building and subsidizing rail service that will run almost empty.

Justine Cooper wrote:I have read no proof that it would have cost the taxpayers any money while building it.

I'm confused, then where does the government funding come from?

Here's the short list of my issues on this matter...
1. Where's the evidence that shows this is something we need?
2. Where's the polling that suggests that this is something we want?
3. Where's the research showing that this is something that we could even use?
4. Where's the estimate as to how much this will cost to opperate once it's built?

I have never claimed to read all th research on this, which is why I posed the question but there are more questions than answers. I did read that it was a Republican initiative initially and many worked to get the money to give it back to another state. Where is the proof there is NO customer base? Ohio had the money and gave it back. The taxes are alerady there, but to another state.

And here's a thought Will, everyone who has an opinion or question on something, anything is NOT whining, just trying to have a conversation or get others' points of veiw. Given a choice, I do prefer wihning to bullying. Which is why so many don't bother posting here anymore, they get tired of having to read bitter bullying.

Here we go once again. Brett those are already allocated funds. They are taken out of the present budget.

If we don't figure out some way to stop eating gas for individuals in cars, we'll all be walking. Well, I won't, I'll be dead, but you kids enjoy yourself and buy good shoes.

Bret Callentine wrote:

Justine Cooper wrote:I have read no proof that it would have cost the taxpayers any money while building it.

I'm confused, then where does the government funding come from?

Here's the short list of my issues on this matter...
1. Where's the evidence that shows this is something we need?
2. Where's the polling that suggests that this is something we want?
3. Where's the research showing that this is something that we could even use?
4. Where's the estimate as to how much this will cost to opperate once it's built?

Bret,
I am not talking of tax dollars already allocated-I am talking of the statements that it will cost us more but have not read proof of that. That tax dollars spent is spent, but sadly not in Ohio now but another fortunate state. I am sure there is research out there since this has been in the works a long time. As far as something we need, we need anything we can get here in Ohio, have you looked around? Will you tell your kids to give back their Christmas presents if they can't prove they need them? A new rail system going between three major cities in Ohio would be fabulous to useful to many. I for one would take more trips to other cities in Ohio if given that option and would love it for my college son. I doubt I am alone in that.