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

[ghettopalmetto]

Land use problems, land costs, people choosing to drive cars , people move, it will never make money in michigan.
Instead maybe have electric or hybrid buses that are FLEXIBLE.

If FLEXIBILITY is so great, why don't we all just fly small aircraft wherever we want to go? I mean, if I'm going to take my car somewhere, I can only drive wherever the government has decided to construct a road. I'm so tired of the government telling me where I can and cannot drive!!!

If we had the flexibility of each of us having our own small aircraft, we could each fly directly to our destinations instead of being limited to roadways, and held up by red lights, stop signs, traffic, geography, yadda yadda. It would be so much faster and easier and FLEXIBLE.

[iheartthed]

If FLEXIBILITY is so great, why don't we all just fly small aircraft wherever we want to go? I mean, if I'm going to take my car somewhere, I can only drive wherever the government has decided to construct a road. I'm so tired of the government telling me where I can and cannot drive!!!

If we had the flexibility of each of us having our own small aircraft, we could each fly directly to our destinations instead of being limited to roadways, and held up by red lights, stop signs, traffic, geography, yadda yadda. It would be so much faster and easier and FLEXIBLE.

"Flexibility" is just a code word for "flight".

[Bearinabox]

CLEARLY you missed the point where I said we, as a society, have divergent views on transportation UNLIKE our more homogeneously opinionated European friends.

I don't know where you're getting this "homogeneously opinionated" stuff from. Germany has something like five mainstream political parties with distinct platforms; if anything, their political spectrum has a greater diversity of opinion than ours. The reason none of their politicians are seriously trying to dismantle high speed rail is that they already have it, and they already know it works. You can't make stupid, unsubstantiated arguments like "it's a waste of money, nobody will ride it" when any fool can walk into a train station and see for themselves. If Obama manages to build us a high-speed rail network, give it five or ten years and we'll be just as "homogeneously opinionated" as they are. John Kasich will be telling anyone who will listen about the revolutionary infrastructure upgrade that went through on his watch and how much it improved Ohio's economy.

Maybe the general public isn't quite sold on it yet, although I'm not sure that's the case. Ohio went for Obama in '08, and the Kasich-Strickland race was pretty damn close [[and I don't think it was primarily a referendum on high-speed rail). But let's say for the sake of argument that we need some convincing. So, convince us. That's what leadership is. That's why we pay Obama the big bucks. If we wanted our country to be ruled by popular opinion and nothing else, we could just replace the federal government with a computer that cuts taxes every year.

[canuck]

How about a status quo then and I propose something we all cherish; FLxible buses!
This one from Detroit Transit History...

[Bearinabox]

No I am 100% right on target.
Can anyone name a light rail system that runs a profit? maybe a couple in the world, or isn't massively subsidized.? New York many years ago.
Look at The People Mover. 8 - 10 MILLION a year subsidized by taxpayers!
Outrageous. Should be called the Detroit Tax Soaker.

You still haven't learned the difference between light rail and what we're talking about in this thread. Ergo, you don't know the first fucking thing about this topic, and you should educate yourself or stop talking. Or don't, I don't care. You're just making yourself look dumb.

[canuck]

I don't know where you're getting this "homogeneously opinionated" stuff from. Germany has something like five mainstream political parties with distinct platforms; if anything, their political spectrum has a greater diversity of opinion than ours. The reason none of their politicians are seriously trying to dismantle high speed rail is that they already have it, and they already know it works. You can't make stupid, unsubstantiated arguments like "it's a waste of money, nobody will ride it" when any fool can walk into a train station and see for themselves. If Obama manages to build us a high-speed rail network, give it five or ten years and we'll be just as "homogeneously opinionated" as they are. John Kasich will be telling anyone who will listen about the revolutionary infrastructure upgrade that went through on his watch and how much it improved Ohio's economy.

Maybe the general public isn't quite sold on it yet, although I'm not sure that's the case. Ohio went for Obama in '08, and the Kasich-Strickland race was pretty damn close [[and I don't think it was primarily a referendum on high-speed rail). But let's say for the sake of argument that we need some convincing. So, convince us. That's what leadership is. That's why we pay Obama the big bucks. If we wanted our country to be ruled by popular opinion and nothing else, we could just replace the federal government with a computer that cuts taxes every year.

Smart! I think the alternative to other modes of transportation; the addition of high speed and very high speed rail is beneficial if only to enhance the offer, but it will also serve to educate us on how to be more frugal with our resources. It is no accident that the US and Canada use more than a quarter of the planet's carbon based resources.

[bailey]

I don't know where you're getting this "homogeneously opinionated" stuff from. Germany has something like five mainstream political parties with distinct platforms; if anything, their political spectrum has a greater diversity of opinion than ours. The reason none of their politicians are seriously trying to dismantle high speed rail is that they already have it, and they already know it works. You can't make stupid, unsubstantiated arguments like "it's a waste of money, nobody will ride it" when any fool can walk into a train station and see for themselves. If Obama manages to build us a high-speed rail network, give it five or ten years and we'll be just as "homogeneously opinionated" as they are. John Kasich will be telling anyone who will listen about the revolutionary infrastructure upgrade that went through on his watch and how much it improved Ohio's economy.

seriously man, reading is fundamental ok? I don't know why you are harping on this and trying to make it an argument.. The opinion of the "insert whatever European country you'd like" is uniformly PRO transit. That is all the post was about. Not how many political parties they have. No matter what the party, even TALK about raising fares or cutting transit and there are riots. Further, I'm not talking about opinions in the U.S. 30 yrs from now IF massive rail construction happens, I'm talking about NOW. here in these United States, in 2010, we have divergent interests and divergent levels of influence for those interests. What is stupid is talking about a mythical dream land of maglev trains in the future without recognizing the fact of the matter is they will never get built in todays political climate. Just telling everyone..."trust us; it's gonna be great" doesn't really fly.

Maybe the general public isn't quite sold on it yet, although I'm not sure that's the case. Ohio went for Obama in '08, and the Kasich-Strickland race was pretty damn close [[and I don't think it was primarily a referendum on high-speed rail). But let's say for the sake of argument that we need some convincing. So, convince us. That's what leadership is. That's why we pay Obama the big bucks. If we wanted our country to be ruled by popular opinion and nothing else, we could just replace the federal government with a computer that cuts taxes every year

The Ohio leadership isn't going to "convince you" because they DONT WANT TO nor do they NEED TO. The wave of anti transit republicans that just get elected did so by screaming about how expensive and unused rail is and how Obama is going to death panel your grandma to pay for trains to nowhere. They got elected by RUNNING AWAY from Obama and virtually ANYTHING connected to him. Rail is dead in this country until exurban soccer moms, Nascar dads, and old people want it because apparently they are the only ones who vote in large enough numbers to get anything done. Frankly, death panels would likely improve our lot.

[oladub]

I think the central location of a train station is more important than the density. The area around the airport is practically rural for the most part. The bus is subject to construction delays, accidents and traffic jams. The goal between Detroit and Chicago is 2 hrs. A more easily attainable goal is 3 hrs @ 110 MPH. This is alot cheaper than rebuilding a mile of I-94. Sounds like a deal to me.

I assumed central locations. Trains are less subject to construction delays, accidents,traffic jams as well as snow delays as you mentioned. I gave you the bus price of Detroit-Chicago RT [[Detroit Rosa Parks Transit Center-Chicago Union Station RT price for the same weekend. RT is $43-51. 5hr.40min. each way.). Busses, in theory, take a bunch of cars off the road too. Detroit to Chicago is 237 miles so it might be possible to get the trip down to two hours by rail although 3 hours seems more feasible. At three hours, the average speed would be 79mph. At least 6 stops would be considered and that takes time. So let's assume that the train would save 2 hours and 40 minutes if you didn't have to wait longer at the train station for airport like security clearance.

Getting back to $ numbers, how much are riders expected to pay to ride the high speed train and how much will they be subsidized per ride over the, for instance, first ten years? I like the idea of high speed trains but want them to go where they get the most ridership per tax dollar. That's why I thought the priority should be a Chicago-East Coast line with a feeder line from Detroit to Toledo rather than a Detroit-Chicago route which would delay the cross country route that would also get riders from Detroit to the East Coast faster.

The New York Central's Twentieth Century limited, using a steam engine, used to make the trip from Chicago to NYC in 16 hours dering the 1930's. That's averaging about 59mph including stops. That would be like going from Detroit to Chicago in 4 hours with 1930's technology. It would take relatively little money to whip the existing line into those same 1930's standards. Maybe that should be the very doable goal for the Detroit Chicago line in addition to upgrading the Detroit Toledo line for travellers headed east or west on the Chicago-East Coast route.

[Bearinabox]

seriously man, reading is fundamental ok? I don't know why you are harping on this and trying to make it an argument.. The opinion of the "insert whatever European country you'd like" is uniformly PRO transit. That is all the post was about. Not how many political parties they have. No matter what the party, even TALK about raising fares or cutting transit and there are riots. Further, I'm not talking about opinions in the U.S. 30 yrs from now IF massive rail construction happens, I'm talking about NOW. here in these United States, in 2010, we have divergent interests and divergent levels of influence for those interests. What is stupid is talking about a mythical dream land of maglev trains in the future without recognizing the fact of the matter is they will never get built in todays political climate. Just telling everyone..."trust us; it's gonna be great" doesn't really fly.

The Ohio leadership isn't going to "convince you" because they DONT WANT TO nor do they NEED TO. The wave of anti transit republicans that just get elected did so by screaming about how expensive and unused rail is and how Obama is going to death panel your grandma to pay for trains to nowhere. They got elected by RUNNING AWAY from Obama and virtually ANYTHING connected to him. Rail is dead in this country until exurban soccer moms, Nascar dads, and old people want it because apparently they are the only ones who vote in large enough numbers to get anything done. Frankly, death panels would likely improve our lot.

Can we please wait to write it off until it's actually been tried?

[ghettopalmetto]

If Europeans are "uniformly" pro-transit, it's because they ACTUALLY HAVE IT.

On the other hand, it's real easy to "dislike" something that's completely unfamiliar to you. We talk about people who "prefer" their cars, as if they're going to walk their fat asses 30 miles each way to work.

In the select few locations in the United States where we do have viable passenger rail, the service is competitive and passenger numbers have been growing by leaps-and-bounds.

[bailey]

Can we please wait to write it off until it's actually been tried?

To borrow from the non detroit side for a moment....

There is no middle in American politics. There's right-of-center and further-right-of-center. There are a handful of left-of-center members of Congress [[Kucinich, Sanders, Feingold for a few more months), but there is no mainstream left-of-center voice of any consequence in our politics.

which is why there will never be cohesive national rail service. I'm not writing it off, I'm just recognizing reality.

[Bearinabox]

To borrow from the non detroit side for a moment....

which is why there will never be cohesive national rail service. I'm not writing it off, I'm just recognizing reality.

There was never going to be health reform either.

[ghettopalmetto]

Passenger rail isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue.

If you want to make a connection between "anti-passenger-rail" and "right wing", the only commonality might be oversimplified thinking and a distinct lack of foresight.

In reality, "pro-rail" is much more a conservative viewpoint, as it can move more people, at higher speeds, using less land, costing less money, and recovering more money from fares, than roadways or air travel.

But since we now define "conservative" as "one who is in bed with oil companies", it's kind of a moot point.

[iheartthed]

Passenger rail isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue.

If you want to make a connection between "anti-passenger-rail" and "right wing", the only commonality might be oversimplified thinking and a distinct lack of foresight.

In reality, "pro-rail" is much more a conservative viewpoint, as it can move more people, at higher speeds, using less land, costing less money, and recovering more money from fares, than roadways or air travel.

But since we now define "conservative" as "one who is in bed with oil companies", it's kind of a moot point.

I agree with this comment. Investing in transit options is a lot more fiscally responsible than blindly tossing money into endless road construction money pits. How many people could be moved on a $1.6B rail system? Money that is instead going to widen I-94??? Pure insanity.

[bailey]

Passenger rail isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue.

If you want to make a connection between "anti-passenger-rail" and "right wing", the only commonality might be oversimplified thinking and a distinct lack of foresight.

In reality, "pro-rail" is much more a conservative viewpoint, as it can move more people, at higher speeds, using less land, costing less money, and recovering more money from fares, than roadways or air travel.

But since we now define "conservative" as "one who is in bed with oil companies", it's kind of a moot point.

exactly. There may be some voices out there on the "right" that are pro-rail/transit, but they are few and far between. the "conservative right" runs the show now, so buh-bye rail money..hellooo new roads!

Personally I would doubt even M1 gets done now. Isn't there still some unfinished enabling legislation to be worked out first?

[Detroitnerd]

exactly. There may be some voices out there on the "right" that are pro-rail/transit, but they are few and far between. the "conservative right" runs the show now, so buh-bye rail money..hellooo new roads!

Personally I would doubt even M1 gets done now. Isn't there still some unfinished enabling legislation to be worked out first?

Not so sure about that. It seems to me that among the cities that have been most proactive about setting up mass transit systems, commuter rail and such have been overwhelmingly Republican, especially in the Southwest. Salt Lake City, not exactly a bastion of left-wingism, has a very successful light rail system with no bickering. Albuquerque and Santa Fe have the Rail Runner commuter system, also very popular. I'm surprised Ohio Republicans can't follow that example and lead on transit in a similar way.

[bailey]

Not so sure about that. It seems to me that among the cities that have been most proactive about setting up mass transit systems, commuter rail and such have been overwhelmingly Republican, especially in the Southwest. Salt Lake City, not exactly a bastion of left-wingism, has a very successful light rail system with no bickering. Albuquerque and Santa Fe have the Rail Runner commuter system, also very popular. I'm surprised Ohio Republicans can't follow that example and lead on transit in a similar way.

Well, not exactly running up against the various racial and socioeconomic barriers there. It's a problem when you have the perception that investment in transit is only going to help "them" to the detriment of "us".

[Detroitnerd]

Well, not exactly running up against the various racial and socioeconomic barriers there. It's a problem when you have the perception that investment in transit is only going to help "them" to the detriment of "us".

Is there something about Ohio I'm missing? How does knitting together these cities serve "them" and not "us"? Aren't there lots of professionals and younger folks in Ohio that would use such a service? Or do Ohioans harbor resentments of people in west Cleveland and shabby parts of Toledo?

[ghettopalmetto]

Is there something about Ohio I'm missing? How does knitting together these cities serve "them" and not "us"? Aren't there lots of professionals and younger folks in Ohio that would use such a service? Or do Ohioans harbor resentments of people in west Cleveland and shabby parts of Toledo?

The young professionals already fled Ohio for more progressive locations, leaving the cast of "Hee-Haw" and wannabe-intellectual housewife college-dropout "conservatives" behind. You know, the folks who made it possible to elect a man governor despite his former job as an investment banker at Lehman Brothers.

I think you're thinking of the east side of Cleveland, Detroitnerd.

[Detroitnerd]

The young professionals already fled Ohio for more progressive locations, leaving the cast of "Hee-Haw" and wannabe-intellectual housewife college-dropout "conservatives" behind. You know, the folks who made it possible to elect a man governor despite his former job as an investment banker at Lehman Brothers.

Is it really all Kornfield Kounty out there? Seems I've know a few cool people who've passed through Cleveland and Columbus and Cincinnati over the years, but you may well know the demographics better than I do.

I think you're thinking of the east side of Cleveland, Detroitnerd.

Oops, didn't remember the lyrics to this video correctly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZzgAjjuqZM

[R8RBOB]

Is it really all Kornfield Kounty out there? Seems I've know a few cool people who've passed through Cleveland and Columbus and Cincinnati over the years, but you may well know the demographics better than I do.



Oops, didn't remember the lyrics to this video correctly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZzgAjjuqZM

Everytime I went through the state, I always referred to it as the "cornstalk state." All I ever saw going through Ohio was miles and miles of cornstalks.

[Russix]

I assumed central locations. Trains are less subject to construction delays, accidents,traffic jams as well as snow delays as you mentioned. I gave you the bus price of Detroit-Chicago RT [[Detroit Rosa Parks Transit Center-Chicago Union Station RT price for the same weekend. RT is $43-51. 5hr.40min. each way.). Busses, in theory, take a bunch of cars off the road too. Detroit to Chicago is 237 miles so it might be possible to get the trip down to two hours by rail although 3 hours seems more feasible. At three hours, the average speed would be 79mph. At least 6 stops would be considered and that takes time. So let's assume that the train would save 2 hours and 40 minutes if you didn't have to wait longer at the train station for airport like security clearance.

Getting back to $ numbers, how much are riders expected to pay to ride the high speed train and how much will they be subsidized per ride over the, for instance, first ten years? I like the idea of high speed trains but want them to go where they get the most ridership per tax dollar. That's why I thought the priority should be a Chicago-East Coast line with a feeder line from Detroit to Toledo rather than a Detroit-Chicago route which would delay the cross country route that would also get riders from Detroit to the East Coast faster.

The New York Central's Twentieth Century limited, using a steam engine, used to make the trip from Chicago to NYC in 16 hours dering the 1930's. That's averaging about 59mph including stops. That would be like going from Detroit to Chicago in 4 hours with 1930's technology. It would take relatively little money to whip the existing line into those same 1930's standards. Maybe that should be the very doable goal for the Detroit Chicago line in addition to upgrading the Detroit Toledo line for travellers headed east or west on the Chicago-East Coast route.

At 3 hours you already overtaken the time it takes to go from downtown to downtown by plane. I think a big part of high speed rail is getting Uncle Sam out of subsidizing airlines to run these short commuter flights[[some cost over $500 per passenger per flight) and into a much cheaper way to provide city to city commuting. So technically high speed rail is an investment into a huge cost saving measure. We already secured funding for 110 mph rail service between Detroit and Chicago. The Englewood Flyover on the south of Chicago is already being built. Michigan just received $161 million to buy track between Dearborn and Kalamazoo. Amtrak already owns the track west of Kalamazoo. SEMCOG is using some of the money to rebuild the West Detroit Connection. So yes all the pieces are already in place and soon we will be able to start reaping the benefits of being only a 3 hour train ride to the downtown of the most successful city in the Midwest.

[Paddington]

The Republicans are wise to oppose these boondoggle rail projects that will cost billions more than projected, billions in ongoing subsidies, and whose ridership levels will never take significant numbers of cars off the roads. We know so because of Amtrak and numerous failed light rail projects around the country.

America isn't Europe. Let's say you take a train in to Amsterdam or London. Pretty much everything is accessible by a short walk, coupled with short tube or bus trips. Let's say you take the train in to Columbus or Cincinnati. The first thing you're going to need is a car, because everything is so sprawled out. If you choose to get around by public transportation, you have to deal with America's extreme climate like 90 degree summers with torrential rains or 15 degree winters with 1 foot of snow on the ground. It's not mild like London where it's 50 degrees with light drizzle all the time. Which then begs the point: why didn't you just drive in, in the first place?

Ohio can ill afford these wasteful rail projects at this time.

[Bearinabox]

The Republicans are wise to oppose these boondoggle rail projects that will cost billions more than projected, billions in ongoing subsidies, and whose ridership levels will never take significant numbers of cars off the roads. We know so because of Amtrak and numerous failed light rail projects around the country.

The only thing wrong with Amtrak is that we haven't made it a priority. This project is an attempt to remedy that.

I don't know which "failed" light rail projects you're referring to, or how you're defining "failure," but I sure hear about a lot of successful ones. They cost money, but they work. That's called an "investment."

America isn't Europe. Let's say you take a train in to Amsterdam or London. Pretty much everything is accessible by a short walk, coupled with short tube or bus trips. Let's say you take the train in to Columbus or Cincinnati. The first thing you're going to need is a car, because everything is so sprawled out.

Cities evolve over time, and transportation infrastructure drives development. If you build a city that's only accessible by car, it will develop in an automobile-oriented manner. If you build a city that's accessible by train, it will develop to accommodate that.

If you choose to get around by public transportation, you have to deal with America's extreme climate like 90 degree summers with torrential rains or 15 degree winters with 1 foot of snow on the ground. It's not mild like London where it's 50 degrees with light drizzle all the time. Which then begs the point: why didn't you just drive in, in the first place?

London isn't the only city in Europe. Ever go to Munich? Vienna? Zürich? Prague? Climates as bad or worse than Detroit's, and people get around just fine using public transportation. It's called putting on a jacket. I mean, freaking Helsinki has buses, trams, subways and commuter trains. Don't be ridiculous.

[ghettopalmetto]

London isn't the only city in Europe. Ever go to Munich? Vienna? Zürich? Prague? Climates as bad or worse than Detroit's, and people get around just fine using public transportation. It's called putting on a jacket. I mean, freaking Helsinki has buses, trams, subways and commuter trains. Don't be ridiculous.

I seem to remember this program on Discovery about the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railroad.... Eh, who am I kidding, though? It's much safer to be driving a car to Moscow during a blizzard, isn't it?

And Lord knows it NEVER EVER gets hot in Italy during the summer.

Oddly enough, we must have figured out that the U.S. has such an "extreme" climate at the same time we decided to sink billions of public dollars into constructing the Interstate Highway System and airports. I mean, what had we been THINKING for the previous 100 years, when we had the finest passenger rail system in the world? Must have been an illusion, huh? Or maybe we were just a lot more socialist back then.

I think our friend above just likes to make excuses for his own complacency.