Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > June > 23 > Entry
Editorial: Good to seek Strickland fight for rail service
With a heated re-election fight looming in the fall, Gov. Ted Strickland is sharpening his appeal to voters. His message to Dayton includes a strong endorsement for the proposed passenger train linking Dayton to Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland, the 3C project.
“No community will benefit more from that than Dayton, Ohio,” he said Tuesday.
In town for what amounted to a campaign stop to address a Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce breakfast, Gov. Strickland was adamant that rail service will be transformative over time and that Ohio will regret a huge missed opportunity if opponents of the idea prevail.
Those opponents include not only his Republican challenger, former Congressman John Kasich, but also influential and usually sensible Republican lawmakers who represent Dayton, most notably state Sen. Jon Husted. The issue now rests with the state Controlling Board, which is divided along party lines, with a super-majority needed for approval.
Gov. Strickland has it right. Aided by a windfall of $400 million in federal stimulus aid —Â money that is going to be spent somewhere else if not in Ohio — the state cannot pass up a once-in-a-generation chance to jump start rail service.
He is also right that Dayton has the most to gain from the project as the smallest major city to get a stop on the line. And, unlike Cincinnati and Cleveland, Dayton will be served by trains going in both directions.
Community leaders should be doing everything they can to educate the members of the Controlling Board on the benefits they see.
Gov. Strickland pointed to growth along a new rail line between Boston and Portland, Maine. Rail projects like that one have shown the creation of up to eight times as many jobs as more typical transportation projects like highways, he said.
He said he had spoken to Cleveland-based developers who already are interested in investing around a train station proposed for Riverside, close to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the U.S. Air Force Museum.
Opponents point to the operating subsidies that will be needed for the system, which will fall to the state. A study has estimated that cost at $17 million a year, about the same as, for example, the recent reconstruction of the Stewart Street Bridge. Opponents say it could be somewhat more. And they say few people will use the trains, which at first will not be very fast or frequent.
Gov. Strickland said focusing on the costs or opposing the project simply because it uses federal stimulus funds misses the big picture:
With six million people between Cleveland and Cincinnati, Ohio has the largest concentration of people without rail service at a time when rail lines are expanding. The state risks being cut off from what may be an essential transportation source in the future.
“We’ve got to begin somewhere,” Gov. Strickland said. “This is an essential first step.” He said his counterpart to the north, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, told him she was upset Ohio’s rail project was funded while Michigan’s was not. Gov. Granholm and other states would love to see Ohio botch its project if it means money might become available for them.
Nobody can say how well the 3C project will work in the short run. But the long-term movement to trains simply makes sense for Ohio and the nation. And the time is now, because of the federal money.
Other communities would be thrilled to be linked in. On this issue, the governor’s position is the right one for Dayton.
Permalink | Comments (30) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Scott Elliott, Transportation
Comments
By Davidss2
June 23, 2010 2:53 PM | Link to this
Governor Doolittle has had a makeover? He’s now the effective, pastor, psychologist, truth-teller, etc. We have to accept the $400,000,000 or it will be spent somewhere else? What a leap of logic. If the government were going to handle the $100,000,000 or so per year that will be the residual costs after the federal money (our tax money) dries up then that would be different. But this is like building windmills and solar cells to power our electrical grid. We are not Boston to Portland. We are more spread out. Let’s build bridges with our money and repair the infrastructure instead of letting Governor Doolittle reshape his image to help Obama try to implement more of his expensive Cap and TAx type projects.
By Max
June 23, 2010 2:59 PM | Link to this
I can’t believe Governor ‘Lionel’ is still trying to sell this……Gov., we have an $8-BILLION deficit! We can’t afford the little grass trees to decorate your idea. DDN, in this editorial you have obvioulsy engaged in a four martini lunch.
By TRS
June 23, 2010 5:43 PM | Link to this
I’m sure the govenor’s position on rail service will make both prospective passengers happy.
By Max
June 23, 2010 6:09 PM | Link to this
“We’ve got to begin somewhere,” Gov. Strickland said. “This is an essential first step.” ——No, the first step is when you’ve been voted back to Petticoat Junction….Woodsheds, chicken coops, trains…?
By Leon Harrison
June 23, 2010 8:36 PM | Link to this
Once again media people cheapen the concept and criteria for courage and sacrifice by giving actors and politicians credit for being brave and “fighting” and taking “risks”, being smart to play a part like they have brains for entertaining us and taking our taxes to spend with and on their friends.
By Champsummers
June 24, 2010 7:58 AM | Link to this
Why would ANYONE ride the train when it takes twice as long as a car? When you get to your destination how are you going to get around? Are you going to rent a…….car? Our Governor is a Dimwit.
By joe_mamma
June 24, 2010 8:06 AM | Link to this
Scott Elliot “money that is going to be spent somewhere else if not in Ohio “. That has to be the most pathetic reason to support this idea I have ever heard. But it goes to show you how easily and nonchalantly a big lib will spend tax payer money.
By KJP
June 24, 2010 12:15 PM | Link to this
Great to see the Guv getting more aggressive on this! The gulf disaster is the latest in a series of reminders about the cost of this nation’s addiction to oil that motorists aren’t paying for. So are a few wars, isolation of Ohio’s poor and elderly, subsidized highways ($800 million per year in Ohio by 2017 yet Kasich worries about $17 million for rail), destruction of Ohio’s cities that scare off our young people for more vibrant destinations, etc. etc. Either we use this $400 million in rail funding to help right our ship or we cede to a competitor to further sink ours. Sure, Ohio can be a pariah state if it wants to and refuse this money. But there are lasting consequences.
By joe_mamma
June 24, 2010 1:05 PM | Link to this
Some additional links about what a boondoggle this will be…. www.reason.org/news/show/high-speed-rail-plans-are-misc www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xyUg4J7Sf8 www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/23/AR2009082302037.html I’m sorry but it just doesn’t make sense.
By Laura Hume
June 24, 2010 1:25 PM | Link to this
Despite the grade-school level mockery being displayed in these comments, I say, “You go, Gov. Strickland!” For many reasons, I am quite enthusiastic about the return of rail, as are lots of my friends who also recognize the need to start the process of weaning spoiled Americans out of overuse of their gas guzzlers.
By Davidss2
June 24, 2010 9:14 PM | Link to this
Now that Laura Hume has started the name calling from her self-righteous position of knowing all-hee hee… If Laura thinks that a slow train running on an expensive track at taxpayer cost will lower use of fuels, she hasn’t thought about the driving to and from the distant few stations to “catch” the train. She hasn’t factored in the use of fuel by the train to carry both passengers from Cleveland to Columbus to Dayton to Cincinnati—if the schedule actually can fit with what they want to do when they want to do it. This ain’t the New York to Boston route with frequent trains for lots of people in a high population area.
By RAS
June 24, 2010 11:16 PM | Link to this
Investments in Public Transportation is one answer to many concerns that all Ohioans share. Unpredictable fuel costs, Environmental Stewardship, Mobility for our aging citizens and Transportation choices that our young want and will move away from home to find. I for one strongly support the 3C passenger rail plan as the first step in building out the Ohio Hub system. I will not be distracted from the fact that here in Ohio we have a history of accomplishment and rebuilding Ohio rail is low hanging fruit, let’s pick it together and move on to bigger things! “Yes, We Can”
By JustDontGet
June 24, 2010 11:43 PM | Link to this
Get real you people! The rails across this nation are already in place.This a way to trim the budget— to ship by rail -travel by rail.Save a huge amount of money by not having to build highways. If they arent built theres no up keep either.Obviously you all have no concept of what it costs to build and maintain roads.I would love a rtelaxing train trip to somewhere away from the road rage.
By joe_mamma
June 25, 2010 7:42 AM | Link to this
JustDontGet…yeah you don’t get it. This will not trim the budget. There will not be a decrease in what is spent on highways….why because we still need them. Trains only go from station to station. People still need to get door to door. Plus why would the country just limit itself to rail. That’s just idiotic. Local roads will still need to be retained because we still need to be able to get to the grocery store etc… My advice is for you to read the studies that have been done. This will not ease the budget, but just be another thing we have to pay for.
By joe_mamma
June 25, 2010 7:57 AM | Link to this
RAS…How will high speed rail address any of the concerns you listed? Unpredictable fuel costs? 1,400 people per day are going to ride the trains in OH. That will not move the dial on gas prices…plus you still have pay for gas to drive to the station. Environmental Stewardship? Again only about 1,400 per day in OH are going to ride this thing per the advocates that did the study. That is ZERO environmental impact…not to mention they still have to drive to get to a station. Mobility for the elderly and young? Why can’t they take the bus? http://us.megabus.com/ or http://www.greyhound.com/home/ the tickets would be about the same price as a train ticket and it’s actually faster.
By Davidss2
June 25, 2010 10:08 AM | Link to this
Yup, RAS, the train goes right by the elderly person’s house and stops right next to their doctor’s office! Heee, heee.
By Yahoo
June 25, 2010 10:31 AM | Link to this
Well there you have it. The Dayton Dumba$$ News speaks. Once again, they dont get it, but what is new. Taking 400 million for a project that will cost taxpayers BILLIONS in the long run, for a product only 5% of the population would use on a casual basis borders on mental retardation. But keep up the good work DDN, the dumbocrats appreciate it. The rest of us thinking people know better…
By Yahoo
June 25, 2010 10:32 AM | Link to this
Well there you have it. The Dayton Dumba$$ News speaks. Once again, they dont get it, but what is new. Taking 400 million for a project that will cost taxpayers BILLIONS in the long run, for a product only 5% of the population would use on a casual basis borders on mental retardation. But keep up the good work DDN, the dumbocrats appreciate it. The rest of us thinking people know better…
By Speculation
June 25, 2010 12:54 PM | Link to this
The $400 million unfortunately would go to another state after a set period of time if we were not to utilize it. They created a budget plan and you can’t just leave $400 million on the sidelines unused, hoping that a state will eventually choose to utilize it. And the trains actually can travel faster then cars between the 3Cs. It is able to run top speeds of 79 MPH (which continues to go faster after upgrades), and is not plagued by traffic, constructions,and accidents. I personally also like the convenience that goes behind riding a train where I don’t have to worry about operating a car; plus there is talk of adding wireless internet to the trains which would allow me to conduct business while commuting between areas. To get to and from the trains there actually would be bus services implemented to neighboring residential areas that are not directly serviced by the station. As for getting off of the train at your destination in a foreign area there are also bus services to transport you around where you need to go, or in one of the more recent articles I read by someone’s first hand experience on a train from Cleveland to New York City, the ability to even walk to some of your destinations. The way I see it is we have been granted this money already and the track is already laid between the 3Cs, only need some repairs done to it. The costs are split 80% federal and 20% state which really places minimal burden on us if you look at the numbers. Train transit systems have worked in many other states that they’ve been placed in with increased ridership annually and incremental upgrades to the transit system making it faster and more efficient. Therefore I can’t see why this wouldn’t work here in the state of Ohio.
By joe_mamma
June 25, 2010 1:14 PM | Link to this
Speculation…hate to break it to you but the travel times between cities will be longer than going by car because the trains will stop at each station. Sorry. Also cars are faster because you just go door to door. Also…passenger travel will be sharing the rails with commercial freight…commercial freight will have priority so your idyllic world where the trains always run on time is very very far from the truth. Since you like the convenience of riding the train because they MIGHT have wifi and you can work, well then you should be aware that wifi currently already exists on busses. www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3736816/Greyhound-Launches-In-Bus-Wi-Fi.htm . Basically you have no solid or logical argument for high speed other than YOU would like it. Pretty selfish.
By Mike R
June 25, 2010 3:39 PM | Link to this
The costs are split 80% federal and 20% state which really places minimal burden on us if you look at the numbers.<< Ah, Speculation, for those of us that PAY Federal Taxes it’s a burden! If you got off the gravey train and paid Federal Taxes too you would understand.
By Jim
June 25, 2010 10:41 PM | Link to this
It’s too bad people don’t have the vision to see that rail service is where we are headed. Oil is eventually going dry up, and will become increasingly expensive. Stickland is correct in the sense that we have to start somewhere. Rail, and the economic infrastructure that surrounds it, is in our future folks, and quicker we get with the program, the better.
By Joe Leaphorn
June 26, 2010 10:36 AM | Link to this
Let’s see: $274 million of the $318 million/year needed to fund the Highway Patrol comes from the General Revenue fund, not usage fees. $26 million comes from the late fees which the Republicans want to eliminate (while complaining about $7 million for the cost of rail). That means an additional $26 million from the General Revenue fund for the Highway Patrol. $9.2 billion has been budgeted for various road/bridge improvements to I-71 and I-75 totalling 44 miles or $210 million/mile and that is in addition to the annual cost to maintain all other roads in Ohio. Of that, replacing the Brent Spence bridge will cost about $2.5 billion/mile. The National Highway Trust Fund is subsidized from general revenues (not paid by gas taxes). Annual Cost: $53 billion. 8% of driving age Ohioans don’t drive but their taxes pay for the Highway Patrol. Ohio spends about $2 billion/year in highway maintenance, preservation and safety. According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, about 48% of this cost will be paid by non-users. Where is the outrage, there? Assuming that Ohio would be on the hook for $7 million/year for, say, 10 years that would mean that for a $70 million investment, the state gets to spend $400 million within its borders. If somebody offered you a guaranteed $400 for a $70 investment, you are telling me that you wouldn’t take it?
By Jim from Dayton
June 26, 2010 4:58 PM | Link to this
As a life-long Republican, I am disappointed with the short-sightedness of local (and state) Republicans in opposing passenger rail service. The oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, persistent problems in the Middle East, and a reviving world economy all point to steady (perhaps sudden) increases in the price of oil and gasoline in coming years, if not months. Since both automobile and air travel are directly affected by such increases, the only realistic alternative transportation mode is passenger and freight rail systems between cities and (yes Karon!) electric tracked trollies within municipalities for trips of more than three or four blocks. Barring a complete transportation paradigm change, that’s the future, and it’s about time that Ohio got on board before the train leaves the station!
By joe_mamma
June 28, 2010 8:19 AM | Link to this
So Joe Leaphorn’s argument is that the funding for highways is screwed up so let’s add to our problems by building a railroad that can’t support itself.
By joe_mamma
June 28, 2010 8:27 AM | Link to this
Jim from Dayton… You might be a Republican, but I doubt you are a conservative. I don’t know if you know this….but there are already rail freightlines between cities. And guess what…there is a mass transit method between cities…its called the bus.
By Ed
June 28, 2010 9:45 PM | Link to this
So many clueless people spouting about things they know nothing about. 15 other states are already doing this. All but one of those states have lower population densities than Ohio. Rail corridors like this work and people ride them in droves. They also return MORE in economic development and jobs than what they cost. There is also a major freight component to this. Efficient freight movement is vital to the economy and this project will only be a net positive for Ohio’s economy. A couple important facts to share: There is a market shift underway in the transportation world: the under-30 crowd increasingly want options to car ownership and they are leaving states like Ohio for states that offer alternatives. Also, driving is on the decline in the US while demand for train travel keeps going up (US Census). I guess Strickland really must be dumb for recognizing these demographic and market changes and trying to keep Ohio competitive. Interesting also to note that the 3C Quick Start is part of the broader Ohio Hub plan, which was developed under a REPUBLICAN administration with the support of a REPUBLICAN house and senate. Now they oppose it because it’s an election year. They were for it before they were against it. Spare me the phony fiscal conservatism.
By joe_mamma
June 29, 2010 9:23 AM | Link to this
Ed, 1) Riders will not ride the 3C corridor in droves. It will be more like drips. Not even 1,400 passengers a day. www.examiner.com/x-23537-Columbus-Government-Examiner~y2009m9d17-Analysis-of—Amtrak-study-for-Ohio-3C-rail-plan-reveals-fatal-flaws To put that in perspective…40,000+ people per day will use the new Austin Pike interchange. 2) Freight rail already exists. As a matter of fact I constantly see commercials for it. That tells me that they need business. Which means businesses have found other ways to get their product to their customers that they deem to be efficient. I don’t think we need the government telling us what is the most effective way to deliver goods to customers. 3) People are not leaving Ohio so that they can ride trains. That is absurd. They are leaving for jobs. 4) Driving is not in decline in the US. It is increasing www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-02-23-congestion_N.htm 5) Don’t believe the hype on high speed rail jobs either www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/02/high-speedrailhasbenefitsb.html 6) Now put your thinking cap on for this…but as for economic development based around train stations…would you as a business person put your business next to a station that gets limited traffic (a fraction of the 1,400 passengers per day) or next to the highway (remember Austin Pike interchange will have 40,000 cars per day).
By John
June 29, 2010 2:31 PM | Link to this
Ohio once had a very efficient and profitable rail service between its major cities. It was called the Interurban. It moved folks for about 2 cents a mile starting in the late 1890’s right up to the late 1940’s. If you want to see an interurban car stop by Carillon Park sometime. You’ll probably get there in the same technological breakthrough that killed the interurban service, your car!
By Mike R
June 30, 2010 5:48 PM | Link to this
Joe_Mamma hit the nail on the head with his factual post. I’ll expand upon one comment regarding Commercial Rail Freight. We have it now. The CSX and NS lines that will be upgraded for the 3-C’s are their major lines…and 95% of that freight PASSES Through Ohio…Outside of property values those R.R’s pay there will be little to no benefit to Ohio for upgraded frt. lines.