State of ohio moves forward to the 1990s

[ZachTheZip]

Putting in a 70mph speed limit. It's about time.

[ziptrumpet87]

Still too slow for me.

[Buckzip]

Putting in a 70mph speed limit. It's about time.

Living down here in Georgia now, I actually feel like I am going slow when I come home.

Down here 70 is the speed limit, but everyone goes 80-90.

[Wally B]

Now only if we were smart enough to accept 1/2billion dollars for high speed rail...... wait no, too late

[RootforRoo44]

Now only if we were smart enough to accept 1/2billion dollars for high speed rail...... wait no, too late

You mean the high speed rail that was going to cost 400 million dollars and predicted to cost 17 million a year and be a hole in the pockets of the state because it has no chance of breaking even? lol

It is about time though with the speed limit.

[Wally B]

Now only if we were smart enough to accept 1/2billion dollars for high speed rail...... wait no, too late

You mean the high speed rail that was going to cost 400 million dollars and predicted to cost 17 million a year and be a hole in the pockets of the state because it has no chance of breaking even? lol

No i was thinking more along the lines of Ohio choosing not to invest in itself, and better position itself competitively in the global market. That approach has done wonders for my home state

Then again we continue to reap "profits" from building (and subsidizing thereof) airports for the airlines and the "free" but gridlocked highways, afterall it's worked well for Ohio so far and hasn't cost us a dime!!!!

[UAZipster0305]

I am all for the rail. I have used it in the northeast and it is a wonderfully relaxing alternative to flying or driving. If I could take the train from Pittsburgh to Akron and vice versa, I would.

Doing away with 3C rail service is yet another example of Ohio holding itself back and proving it is behind the times.

The fact that Akron was not included on the 3C route was sick. Especially considering Dayton and Medina were.

[RootforRoo44]

Hey, we would have gladly taken the money to invest in things of real importance such as:

Repairing bridges/infrastructure

Building/repairing commercial railways (the ones that actually make money)

or

God forbid we use it to reduce our ridiculous deficit and not spend/waste it at all.

Anyways, I dont see the use in using "high speed" rail that only goes about 55mph and in the end after loading and unloading takes just as long as driving. Cross country MagLev lines make far more sense if we are going to blow money on 19th century transportation.

[tbozeglav]

that vast majority of Europe would disagree, RootforRoo.

Rail, both in the forms of conventional speed and high-speed, have proven to be a very effective means of mass transportation. There's a reason why they're still in the process of building a rail tunnel through the swiss alps instead of it being a highway tunnel.

Sure, taking a train ride down to columbus may cost a little more than driving and take an almost equal time, but consider the other savings. First and foremost being environmental pollution. If every train rider drove their respective cars, it'll produce a lot more pollution than a single train would. Second, theres next to no wear-and-tear on your car from the trip aside from the drive to the stations. Thats a long-term cost savings right there. Third, you aren't required to DRIVE, meaning you could take a early-morning or late-night train and not have to worry about staying awake. You can sleep, read a book, surf the web, do whatever you want while on the train. Its just relaxing and much less stressful. Lastly, the rail lines are almost always on-time, meaning you won't have to worry about traffic jams from accidents, long lines at the security checkpoints, or have to deal idiot drivers.

I would glady pay more to go to columbus or points further if it meant a more enjoyable ride and an overall better trip.

[Hilltopper]

that vast majority of Europe would disagree, RootforRoo.

Rail, both in the forms of conventional speed and high-speed, have proven to be a very effective means of mass transportation. There's a reason why they're still in the process of building a rail tunnel through the swiss alps instead of it being a highway tunnel.

Sure, taking a train ride down to columbus may cost a little more than driving and take an almost equal time, but consider the other savings. First and foremost being environmental pollution. If every train rider drove their respective cars, it'll produce a lot more pollution than a single train would. Second, theres next to no wear-and-tear on your car from the trip aside from the drive to the stations. Thats a long-term cost savings right there. Third, you aren't required to DRIVE, meaning you could take a early-morning or late-night train and not have to worry about staying awake. You can sleep, read a book, surf the web, do whatever you want while on the train. Its just relaxing and much less stressful. Lastly, the rail lines are almost always on-time, meaning you won't have to worry about traffic jams from accidents, long lines at the security checkpoints, or have to deal idiot drivers.

I would glady pay more to go to columbus or points further if it meant a more enjoyable ride and an overall better trip.

I sure hope once you get off that train your final destination is within walking distance.

[Zipmeister]

that vast majority of Europe would disagree, RootforRoo.

Rail, both in the forms of conventional speed and high-speed, have proven to be a very effective means of mass transportation. There's a reason why they're still in the process of building a rail tunnel through the swiss alps instead of it being a highway tunnel.

Sure, taking a train ride down to columbus may cost a little more than driving and take an almost equal time, but consider the other savings. First and foremost being environmental pollution. If every train rider drove their respective cars, it'll produce a lot more pollution than a single train would. Second, theres next to no wear-and-tear on your car from the trip aside from the drive to the stations. Thats a long-term cost savings right there. Third, you aren't required to DRIVE, meaning you could take a early-morning or late-night train and not have to worry about staying awake. You can sleep, read a book, surf the web, do whatever you want while on the train. Its just relaxing and much less stressful. Lastly, the rail lines are almost always on-time, meaning you won't have to worry about traffic jams from accidents, long lines at the security checkpoints, or have to deal idiot drivers.

I would glady pay more to go to columbus or points further if it meant a more enjoyable ride and an overall better trip.

I sure hope once you get off that train your final destination is within walking distance.

zipsMan isn't concerned about things like that ever since he got his rocket pack.

[Wally B]

that vast majority of Europe would disagree, RootforRoo.

Rail, both in the forms of conventional speed and high-speed, have proven to be a very effective means of mass transportation. There's a reason why they're still in the process of building a rail tunnel through the swiss alps instead of it being a highway tunnel.

Sure, taking a train ride down to columbus may cost a little more than driving and take an almost equal time, but consider the other savings. First and foremost being environmental pollution. If every train rider drove their respective cars, it'll produce a lot more pollution than a single train would. Second, theres next to no wear-and-tear on your car from the trip aside from the drive to the stations. Thats a long-term cost savings right there. Third, you aren't required to DRIVE, meaning you could take a early-morning or late-night train and not have to worry about staying awake. You can sleep, read a book, surf the web, do whatever you want while on the train. Its just relaxing and much less stressful. Lastly, the rail lines are almost always on-time, meaning you won't have to worry about traffic jams from accidents, long lines at the security checkpoints, or have to deal idiot drivers.

I would glady pay more to go to columbus or points further if it meant a more enjoyable ride and an overall better trip.

I sure hope once you get off that train your final destination is within walking distance.

zipsMan isn't concerned about things like that ever since he got his rocket pack.

The fact that the 3c project died is a perfect example of journalism died in the US.

FACT - the 55mph high speed was to establish service before investing money in "improvements" to make the line high speed

FACT - this would actually upgrade already profitable commercial lines

FACT - most of the stations are already built (cleveland/cincy) and simple ones for Medina are relatively innexpensive

FACT - Stations are generally located in the heart of a community, making a cab ride MUCH less expensive than say one from an outlying airport

FACT - Long term rail is undeniably less expensive to maintain and operate and more efficient that either air travel or highway maintenance/expansion.

FACT - this project would have put skilled Ohio workers back to work and off unemployment. Which in turn would bolster our economy... instead they'll find work in florida...

I'll repeat. WE GAVE AWAY A HALF-A-BILLION, YES BILLION, DOLLARS!!!

[GP1]

No i was thinking more along the lines of Ohio choosing not to invest in itself, and better position itself competitively in the global market. That approach has done wonders for my home state

How is a rail system like this an investment in the state? How does it make Ohio more competitive in the global market? It all sounds good when you say it and type it, but does it really do these things.

Only one public transportation system in the United States turns a profit, New York City. Every other transit system loses money and is basically a welfare program.

[UAZipster0305]

No i was thinking more along the lines of Ohio choosing not to invest in itself, and better position itself competitively in the global market. That approach has done wonders for my home state

How is a rail system like this an investment in the state? How does it make Ohio more competitive in the global market? It all sounds good when you say it and type it, but does it really do these things.

Only one public transportation system in the United States turns a profit, New York City. Every other transit system loses money and is basically a welfare program.

Roads don't "make" money either. They are exclusively paid for with taxes.

By your logic, all forms of transportation are welfare programs. They are all in some way subsidized with public money. Even private jets usually (although not always) utilize public airports.

[meatwad]

No i was thinking more along the lines of Ohio choosing not to invest in itself, and better position itself competitively in the global market. That approach has done wonders for my home state

How is a rail system like this an investment in the state? How does it make Ohio more competitive in the global market? It all sounds good when you say it and type it, but does it really do these things.

Only one public transportation system in the United States turns a profit, New York City. Every other transit system loses money and is basically a welfare program.

Roads don't "make" money either. They are exclusively paid for with taxes.

By your logic, all forms of transportation are welfare programs. They are all in some way subsidized with public money. Even private jets usually (although not always) utilize public airports.

Except everyone uses roads daily. About 2% of the population would use trains. And many of those would be once in a lifetime.

[UAZipster0305]

No i was thinking more along the lines of Ohio choosing not to invest in itself, and better position itself competitively in the global market. That approach has done wonders for my home state

How is a rail system like this an investment in the state? How does it make Ohio more competitive in the global market? It all sounds good when you say it and type it, but does it really do these things.

Only one public transportation system in the United States turns a profit, New York City. Every other transit system loses money and is basically a welfare program.

Roads don't "make" money either. They are exclusively paid for with taxes.

By your logic, all forms of transportation are welfare programs. They are all in some way subsidized with public money. Even private jets usually (although not always) utilize public airports.

Except everyone uses roads daily. About 2% of the population would use trains. And many of those would be once in a lifetime.

With current American culture, yes, you are correct. The use of railroads would take some getting used to, but you need look no further than Amtrak's northeast corridor to see the potential. Europeans also make regular and widespread use of high-speed railroad.

[you am i]

No i was thinking more along the lines of Ohio choosing not to invest in itself, and better position itself competitively in the global market. That approach has done wonders for my home state

How is a rail system like this an investment in the state? How does it make Ohio more competitive in the global market? It all sounds good when you say it and type it, but does it really do these things.

Only one public transportation system in the United States turns a profit, New York City. Every other transit system loses money and is basically a welfare program.

Roads don't "make" money either. They are exclusively paid for with taxes.

By your logic, all forms of transportation are welfare programs. They are all in some way subsidized with public money. Even private jets usually (although not always) utilize public airports.

Except everyone uses roads daily. About 2% of the population would use trains. And many of those would be once in a lifetime.

With current American culture, yes, you are correct. The use of railroads would take some getting used to, but you need look no further than Amtrak's northeast corridor to see the potential. Europeans also make regular and widespread use of high-speed railroad.

High speed rail works in Europe and Japan because of the density of the population and public demand for trains. Maybe in the Boston/NY/Phil/DC corridor it would work because of the population and the demand for ridership. But Ohio is much different. The population is smaller with less density and there is little demand for train ridership. Plus, it would be very expensive to build and maintain. In most of the country, interstate auto travel and plane travel is what people demand, so that's what is available. If there was a demand for a train to run from Cleveland to Cinci, it would exist. There isn't and it doesn't.

[bobbyake]

if any high speed rail system proposal doesn't include Akron, than I'm happy to see it fail. Whether it's good for the state or not isn't a concern, if it doesn't include Akron.

[skip-zip]

All I have to say is Thank God for John Kasich.

[RootforRoo44]

All I have to say is Thank God for John Kasich.

+10000000

[GP1]

By your logic, all forms of transportation are welfare programs. They are all in some way subsidized with public money. Even private jets usually (although not always) utilize public airports.

No, public transportation programs are things that move people. Trains, bus, subway, etc. These programs lose money everywhere other than New York City.

[Wally B]

High speed rail works in Europe and Japan because of the density of the population and public demand for trains. Maybe in the Boston/NY/Phil/DC corridor it would work because of the population and the demand for ridership. But Ohio is much different. The population is smaller with less density and there is little demand for train ridership. Plus, it would be very expensive to build and maintain. In most of the country, interstate auto travel and plane travel is what people demand, so that's what is available. If there was a demand for a train to run from Cleveland to Cinci, it would exist. There isn't and it doesn't.

Ahhh yes, and Firestone wasn't involved in a scandal to eliminate the LA trolley lines and put people in busses and cars (lobbying works wonders doesn't it). After years of the exact same arguments you propose here, LA started rebuilding it's rail/subway service (creating demand). In the mid/late 90's there was another supposed scandal because the commission supposedly bought too many rail cars for lines many were asking to be abandoned due to cost overruns between Hollywood and Universal City. Now the service is popular and growing, and they have and EXTRA 1/2 BILLION DOLLARS to spend to enhance service across the great valley to SF.

As for demand in Ohio, you're right we will not know for some time atleast. Phase1 was to start up the 3c service to build demand while the ignorant claimed it would be to establish 55mph high speed. Yes building a rail line can be expensive. But it has long been proven that this investment is FAR CHEAPER than building/expanding/maintaining/rebuilding highways. Remember, those Turnpike tolls that were supposed to go away once it was paid for They've doubled in the last 5 years alone. Gosh i wonder why that is. Certainly maintaining those "FREE" interstates is cheaper right?

As for making us competitive in the global market? Establishing and maintaining such a system brings skilled positions to our state. We are centrally located betwen NY and Chicago. Perfect for maintenance. Gosh, isn't there an absolutely HUGE and empty facility in Mansfield right now? Gosh if only we could take advantage of that opportunity and put that region back to work with good paying jobs.... Too late we didn't invest like Illinois did Oh and look, a major european wind turbine manufacturer was looking for a centrally located inland port to establish operations in North America. Whoops, we didn't invest in and maintain our port in Cleveland, awww so sad Gosh, i wonder why Ohio is in the sh***er? Well atleast we saved a few bucks to keep in the pockets of those who invest in companies that are growing becasue they are working on major projects in other states

Sorry if i'm ranting here. I shouldn't be so synical. Afterall, investing in innefficient modes of transportation, utilized by inefficient machines (compared to trains) only feeds our dependence on middle east oil, which we pay for with money borrowed from China who litterally owns us. But hey atleast we think we're spending less right ? Oh that's ok, you can enjoy your drive to your McJob because Ohio wasn't positioned nationally or globally

Oh and don't forget to blame the national government for your woes!!

[Dave in Green]

The actual cost of any transportation option is the result of a complex formula that includes many factors not usually considered in casual discussions, such as future scalability. For example, the current balance of U.S. transportation systems was developed in an environment of cheap, plentiful petroleum. Transportation systems evolve to fit changes in the availability and cost of various energy sources. When it comes to implementing transportation changes to fit future environments, some will be ahead of the curve and some will be behind.

[zippy5]

I like to think I'm pretty conservative, but man...some of you need to get out of NEO/the 20th century.

Maybe you can take the train.

[Sergeant Zip]

By your logic, all forms of transportation are welfare programs. They are all in some way subsidized with public money. Even private jets usually (although not always) utilize public airports.

No, public transportation programs are things that move people. Trains, bus, subway, etc. These programs lose money everywhere other than New York City.

41 of Amtrak’s 44 routes lost money in 2008 with losses ranging from nearly $5 to $462 per passenger depending upon the line.