Republicans Vow To Fight High Speed Rail; Use Money For Freeways

[littlebuddy]

I don't travel by plane, but if I did, would a short hop from Columbus to Cinn be worth it in time and money and energy spent? I understand going from Det. to L.A and renting a car to get around, but from some places it just seems not worth your while.

[Funaho]

I don't travel by plane, but if I did, would a short hop from Columbus to Cinn be worth it in time and money and energy spent? I understand going from Det. to L.A and renting a car to get around, but from some places it just seems not worth your while.

Renting a car is also difficult when you're like me and don't have a credit card [[I carry a check card, and a couple store-specific cards for emergency car repairs, but that's it.)

[Hypestyles]

if Ohio's governor follows through on this, he needs to be recalled.. there needs to be language that the federal funds for rail development cannot be blocked by the sitting governor nor the state legislature..

[mikefmich]

I don't have much philosophically to add, other than Kasich is a total .......... He already has Republicans down here looking at him over the top of their glasses silently.
He could become famous as the first Ohio Gov. to be recalled.

[mikefmich]

I don't travel by plane, but if I did, would a short hop from Columbus to Cinn be worth it in time and money and energy spent? I understand going from Det. to L.A and renting a car to get around, but from some places it just seems not worth your while.

Not at all, and I live only 20 min. from Port Columbus. I can drive to Cincy in 90 minutes from my house.

[mikefmich]

At the same time, ODOT plans a $1.6 BILLION reconstruction of ONE interchange in Columbus--the I-70/71 split.

That has been sorely needed for 30+ yrs. They had that on the books to do when my oldest kid was 6. I now have a 8 yr old grandson

[gdogslim]

Light rail is a expensive boondoggle we can't afford. Just look at Amtrak.
I always liked taking rail when I was in San Diego, Portland, Boston, Detroit. But the cost is so overwhelmingly huge per rider it makes no sense at all.

from: http://washingtonpolicyblog.typepad....-promises.html
Light Rail, One Year Later: A Train of Broken Promises

As our first year with light rail comes to a close, Sound Transit officials are certain to declare the
experiment an unqualified success. Yet, a closer look at the actual performance shows citizens are not getting what they are paying for.
In 1996, Sound Transit officials promised voters they would build 25 miles of light rail for a total cost of about $1.8 billion, and they would be finished by 2006. In fact, officials were so confident in their “conservative” projections they called it, “Sound Move, The 10-Year Regional Transit System Plan.”
Fourteen years later, Sound Transit officials have reduced the planned line to 21 miles, and have only delivered about 17 miles for about $2.6 billion. The rest will not be finished until around 2020 for a total cost approaching $15 billion. In other words, Phase 1 is smaller, billions over budget and more than a dozen years late compared to what officials originally promised voters.
Here are some other promises from 1996 that Sound Transit officials have failed to deliver [[quotes are from the Sound Move plan adopted in May 1996 and passed by voters in November 1996):

• Promise: “[Sound Transit] is committed to building and operating a ten-year system plan that can be confidently funded and completed as promised to the region's citizens.”
  Reality: Today, the initial segment is already four miles shorter, billions over budget and more than a dozen years late from what was promised in 1996.

• Promise: “If voters decide not to extend the system, [Sound Transit] will roll back the tax rate”
  Reality: Voters rejected an extension in 2007, but Sound Transit officials did not roll back taxes. Instead, officials pushed for a second measure the following year, which voters ultimately approved.

• Promise: Light rail will carry 32.6 million riders per year, or 107,000 per weekday, by 2010.
  Reality: Today, light rail carries 17,000 to 20,000 riders per weekday and will likely carry only 5.6 million riders for the year.

• Promise: “Sound Move is based on extremely conservative cost and ridership assumptions.”
  Reality: Despite claiming seventeen times that Sound Move’s cost and ridership projections are based on “conservative” estimates, Sound Transit officials are spending billions more and carrying fewer riders than what they told voters.

• Promise: Riders will pay more than half [[53 percent) of the annual operating costs of light rail.
  Reality: Today, Sound Transit officials say riders will cover only 40 percent, but actually are on track to recover far less than that.

• Promise: “The light-rail system will provide significantly greater reliability than all other types of public transportation in the region.”
  Reality: Today, the Central Link light rail segment has an on-time performance of only 71 percent, while other modes average above 90 percent.

• Promise: Sound Transit’s initial light rail facility can carry 22,000 passengers per hour, per direction.
  Reality: Today, the facility carries about 425 passengers per hour, per direction.

More Good News from NY Times
Rail Service Expansion Imperiled at State Level
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/us...michael_cooper

[iheartthed]

Renting a car is also difficult when you're like me and don't have a credit card [[I carry a check card, and a couple store-specific cards for emergency car repairs, but that's it.)

It's also very difficult if you're under 25. Doesn't Detroit have a little problem attracting young people? Maybe it's because they can't get around when they come to visit...

[Bearinabox]

Light rail is a expensive boondoggle we can't afford. Just look at Amtrak.

You are hopelessly confused. Light rail and current Amtrak service are two completely different things, and neither one is the subject of this thread.

[mikefmich]

It's also very difficult if you're under 25. Doesn't Detroit have a little problem attracting young people? Maybe it's because they can't get around when they come to visit...

It's near impossible if you're under 21. Under 25's pay a modest surcharge per day, in most parts of the country. A few places are hefty such as NYC, LA, etc.

[iheartthed]

It's near impossible if you're under 21. Under 25's pay a modest surcharge per day, in most parts of the country. A few places are hefty such as NYC, LA, etc.

I dunno if I would call roughly %50 of the daily charge a modest fee... On top of insurance, gas and the base rental price. Sounds much more expensive than a $2.25 train ride in Chicago or New York [[or Philadelphia, or Washington, or Boston).

[dtowncitylover]

This makes me angry. Of course, maybe another reason to hate Ohio: Their politicians are dumb as rocks. I mean do they ever see what goes on in other countries? Most of Eastern Europe lives better than us when it comes to public transit and train travel!

As my French friend says [[after I told her about the schitty service of Amtrak), "It's like Africa here!"

It's the individualistic society we live in in America, if you don't have a car, you're SOL.

[bailey]

This makes me angry. Of course, maybe another reason to hate Ohio: Their politicians are dumb as rocks. I mean do they ever see what goes on in other countries? Most of Eastern Europe lives better than us when it comes to public transit and train travel!

Depending on how you define it, Eastern Europe would fit on the Eastern Seaboard. So, comparing like items, there is little difference.

As my French friend says [[after I told her about the schitty service of Amtrak), "It's like Africa here!"

Well as noted above, France is about the size of Texas with almost 3 times the population.

I guess what I'm saying is let's not ignore the VAST size difference between countries in Europe and the US. Heck the UK [[all of it..) would fit entirely in within Oregon.

So, just to say...well Europe does it, ignores the huge difference in scale and population density. It also ignores the vast differences in opinion we have in this very diverse country about what are priorities are.

[canuck]

Of course it doesnt register with some people that spending 15 billion on light rail in cities with your tax dollar offsets costs in use and abuse of roadway, traffic jams and pollution. The investment is worthwhile insofar as its promotion finds an open public. If the potential user is catered to by cheap fuel, hidden costs in infrastructure and yes, Obama's cash for clunkers, then, of course; using a car is still more palatable than trains or air travel on short to medium distances. But we are in the US and Canada, we are in a save the car industry mode, so the Governement Motors bailout seems like a good investment at a cost of many billions. The governement will be paid back, the company officers will eventually be rewarded with ever bigger salaries, and the train will still look like something from a bygone era, that is; until a liter of fuel becomes more expensive than a bottle of Evian water. Dog forbid.

[canuck]

Depending on how you define it, Eastern Europe would fit on the Eastern Seaboard. So, comparing like items, there is little difference.

Well as noted above, France is about the size of Texas with almost 3 times the population.

I guess what I'm saying is let's not ignore the VAST size difference between countries in Europe and the US. Heck the UK [[all of it..) would fit entirely in within Oregon.

So, just to say...well Europe does it, ignores the huge difference in scale and population density. It also ignores the vast differences in opinion we have in this very diverse country about what are priorities are.

Well yes, and Quebec is two and a half times the size of Texas, our population is a third its size, and there is a plan for linking Quebec City to Windsor and linking Montreal to New York by high speed rail.

[Detroitnerd]

I'm not too worried about this gasbag. Frankly, I've seen a long, slow process over the last 10 to 20 years where people's opinions have been changing for the better regarding complete transit systems. The people at the top are the most regressive, always, and will grow increasingly hysterical and illogical until they are finally forced to admit defeat. What you see here is a loudmouth politician hoping to keep the lay-down-the-concrete-and-the-prosperity-will-follow cargo cult going. When the political leaders start sounding bizarre and out-of-touch like this, you can be sure that they realize they're reaching endgame.

[bailey]

Well yes, and Quebec is two and a half times the size of Texas, our population is a third its size, and there is a plan for linking Quebec City to Windsor and linking Montreal to New York by high speed rail.

Wonderful. there is a plan...for sometime in the future. The comment above was about the current state of rail transit here vis a vis the current state of rail in Europe. I think that what gets lost in the comparison is the relative size of the landmasses being traversed and a less homogeneous population. that is all.

[Bearinabox]

a less homogeneous population.

What is your metric for "homogeneity," and where are you getting your data? Anyway, what does that have to do with the viability of rail transit?

[R8RBOB]

Newsweek's take on this:
"Somehow, it has become fashionable to think that high-speed trains connecting major cities will help “save the planet.” They won’t. They’re a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause. They would further burden already-overburdened governments and drain dollars from worthier programs—schools, defense, research." More: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/29/w...ake-sense.html

Here is the truth because we assume that everyone is on-board but they are not.

Mass transit is frown upon by Republicans like they frown on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Unemployment benefits, Fanny and Freddie Mac and etc, etc.....because it is all social and they don't give a damn about anything social. Want proof? Look no further than to Lewis Brooks Patterson. Brooks loves sprawl because in Brooksland, everyone who has a car or two is middle-class or well-to-do and will never need public transportation to get around. In the mind of Brooks and other like-minded Republicans, the only people who cries for mass transit is the poor, the ones that need public transportation to get around and a tax-payer in Birmingham who voted for L. Brooks Patterson is asking this question: why should pay taxes for mass transit when I will never use it? We have three cars and a mobile home and I am going to be required to pay taxes so that some poor unfortunate Detroiter who can't afford a car can get around. That tax-payer is thinking like the governor-elect of Ohio and Brooks. Build more highways.

[bailey]

What is your metric for "homogeneity," and where are you getting your data? Anyway, what does that have to do with the viability of rail transit?

Nothing to do with the viability per se. Point being was simply to compare apples to apples. One cannot say...oh i can get anywhere in France by rail why can't you do it in the US? and pretend that the US isn't an entirely different animal. You can get around the Eastern Sea-board of the US [[ an area of about the same population of France)sure with the same ease. THAT part of the US, values and relies upon rail... OUR part of the US can't figure out how to put in 3 miles of track within a generation.

[Bearinabox]

Nothing to do with the viability per se. Point being was simply to compare apples to apples. One cannot say...oh i can get anywhere in France by rail why can't you do it in the US? and pretend that the US isn't an entirely different animal. You can get around the Eastern Sea-board of the US [[ an area of about the same population of France)sure with the same ease. THAT part of the US, values and relies upon rail... OUR part of the US can't figure out how to put in 3 miles of track within a generation.

I don't know much about the rail situation on the Eastern Seaboard, but high-speed rail in France isn't confined to France. You can hop on a TGV out of Gare de l'Est in Paris, transfer to an ICE in Stuttgart, ride to Munich and get an ÖBB Railjet to Budapest by way of Vienna. Go to any major European train station near an international border, and you'll see several trains from neighboring countries running back and forth. It's all coordinated, and they're upgrading it all the time.

America had world-class passenger rail once. It declined because we decided it wasn't important. There's no inherent reason why rail can't work here, we just need more visionaries like Obama and fewer knuckle-dragging morons like Kasich.

[iheartthed]

Wonderful. there is a plan...for sometime in the future. The comment above was about the current state of rail transit here vis a vis the current state of rail in Europe. I think that what gets lost in the comparison is the relative size of the landmasses being traversed and a less homogeneous population. that is all.

The landmass comparison argument would be more relevant if we were talking about connecting the east coast with the west coast, but the Eastern U.S. is about as densely populated with cities as western Europe, and at comparable distances. Detroit and Chicago are roughly the same distance from each other as Paris and London. Same for Detroit and Toronto, NY and Boston, NY and Washington, NY and Pittsburgh, Chicago and St. Louis, etc.

If you start comparing distances between other popular European routes, such as Paris to Berlin [[about the distance of NY to Detroit), or Berlin to Rome [[NY to Atlanta or Detroit to Atlanta), then almost every major [[North) American city east of the Mississippi is within reach of NY, Chicago or both.

[ghettopalmetto]

Depending on how you define it, Eastern Europe would fit on the Eastern Seaboard. So, comparing like items, there is little difference.

Well as noted above, France is about the size of Texas with almost 3 times the population.

I guess what I'm saying is let's not ignore the VAST size difference between countries in Europe and the US. Heck the UK [[all of it..) would fit entirely in within Oregon.

So, just to say...well Europe does it, ignores the huge difference in scale and population density. It also ignores the vast differences in opinion we have in this very diverse country about what are priorities are.

CLEARLY, you missed the part where Ohio has an equivalent population density as France, which has one of the more extensive rail networks in the world, high-speed and otherwise.

Speaking from first-hand experience, it's far easier and cheaper to get around a poor country with an emerging economy, like Poland, than it is to get around Ohio. I could walk up to the station, buy a ticket for the next train, and wait no more than 30 minutes for one to show up. Oh--and all the trains, including the freight trains, operate on overhead electric catenary, because the Polish people don't have Saudi cocks in their mouths.

There are Polish cities with 250,000 inhabitants that see 40 trains a day. Ohio can't even run 3 lousy round-trips between three of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States because they "can't afford it" [[while they spend 176 times as much money annually just maintaining the freeway system--never mind capital projects like the $1.6 billion interchange rebuild in Columbus or the new $400 million bridge in Cleveland).

[Canthisbe]

Like most Federal programs / grants , etc., there is no free money for the states for rail programs. One of the reasons that many state governors oppose rail programs [[and lots of other programs) is that the Federal government funds a fraction of the initial construction / start up costs and the states have to pay the rest - which they usually can’t afford. Also, the states get stuck with gigantic operating losses which go on year after year long after the federal level politicians that took credit for the programs have left office.

[ghettopalmetto]

Like most Federal programs / grants , etc., there is no free money for the states for rail programs. One of the reasons that many state governors oppose rail programs [[and lots of other programs) is that the Federal government funds a fraction of the initial construction / start up costs and the states have to pay the rest - which they usually can’t afford. Also, the states get stuck with gigantic operating losses which go on year after year long after the federal level politicians that took credit for the programs have left office.

The 3C Corridor in Ohio would cost $17 million a year to operate. ODOT spends more than that mowing the grass in highway medians.

For that money, Ohio could add 8000 jobs and $1.2 Billion to its economy--a 300% return on investment.

But I suppose Ohio can't afford to be adding jobs or to grow their own economy in times like this. Let all the young folks move to the East Coast, Illinois, and even North Carolina, where states actually INVEST money in such things.