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.
Scott Elliott is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He writes about education, city and suburban issues, politics, business, workforce and consumer issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > December > 09 > Entry
Martin Gottlieb: 3C salvage effort can’t save Ohio from itself
The most recent efforts to save the 3C passenger train always had certain aspects of a Hail Mary pass. That’s the football maneuver whereby a team that needs a touchdown in the last few seconds of a game tries a pass that’s so long the chances for success are minimal.
And yet, the pass metaphor isn’t quite right. The 3C salvage effort wasn’t really one long pass. It was a bunch of small efforts, each of which had to work out. And each — standing alone — seemed more or less doable.
The problem at hand was, of course, that Gov.-elect John Kasich
didn’t want to accept the $400 million the feds were offering to build a passenger line from Cincinnati to Cleveland via Columbus and Dayton. Though the feds were putting up all the capital, the state would have been responsible for the operating money, which was estimated at $17 million a year. (That money might have come out of federal transportation aid for a while, but would have had to be diverted from roads and such.)
Since the election, some supporters of 3C have been thinking about ways to come up with the money from private sources. If they could do that, they could also, under the law, set up an agency separate from the state to run the trains. To do that, they would probably need the cooperation of the state. But why would the governor object if he didn’t have to put up any money?
The crunch was the money. But Columbus businessman Barry Fromm, who wanted to make train cars for the system, said he thought the money could be raised from various “stakeholders.” He said developers of territory around train stations would have an interest in putting up money. So would people who make or service train cars. He even mentioned freight train companies, which might benefit from upgrades in the tracks or other aspects of their systems.
One advocacy group even said that money coming out of the planned development at the Riverside train depot could be enough to cover the $17 million.
But the salvage effort was just getting started when the news came from Washington on Thursday: The federal Transportation Department is giving the $400 million to other states that are going ahead with train projects.
The Obama administration is apparently worried that if it doesn’t spend the money quickly, the newly empowered Republicans who arrive in Washington in January will try to stop everything they can stop.
Who knew what about the plans of the Ohio 3C supporters isn’t clear. Those plans hadn’t come in for much public attention. An editorial in this newspaper Dec. 5 raised the possibility of private efforts in general terms.
And a news story with more specific information was published on the same day as the Transportation Department announcement.
For whatever reason, nobody succeeded in convincing the Obama administration that there was still hope in Ohio for fast-enough action.
Passenger rail in Ohio has had a long and winding path. The path will continue to wind, somehow, in some direction. The idea of passenger service in such an exceptionally populous and compact place is too powerful to die.
But as of now, the state seems to have blown it. The fault clearly is not with the diehard visionaries who wouldn’t give up, or in Washington, but with a governor-elect who adopted the language of certitude in a political campaign: “It’s dead.”
John Kasich couldn’t trouble himself to seek compromise over what is — by state standards — an absurdly small amount of money.
Privatization should have been an idea coming from the Kasich camp itself. At least the governor wouldn’t be starting off his term without his nose, having cut it off to spite his face.
TweetPlease share your comments on our facebook page.
Comments
By Mike R
December 9, 2010 8:30 PM | Link to this
Martin, what part of “we’re BROKE” don’t you understand??? Federal money comes from us, the taxpayer. It doesn’t grow on trees!! The Fed Gov’t has $100 TRILLION in debt and unfunded liabilities. The State of Ohio has an $8 BILLION budget shortfall on top of their unfunded liabilities. It doesn’t matter if it’s an “absurdly small amount of money” if you’re frickin’ BROKE!! Get it?? The state and Fed gov’t don’t have two dimes to rub together if they wanted too!! WOW! You are immensely dense. It was a bad plan. Period. If it were such a great plan how come private business didn’t step up to the plate all these years??!! For the past twelve months supporters of the 3C+D knew it was in trouble! Why couldn’t they get their act together before now?? Answer: It’s a bad plan! Private business didn’t want to touch it with a ten foot pole because it was a guaranteed money LOSER! It just boggles my mind how stupid you are! Obvioulsy you aren’t the money manager in your house. What this editorial really should be titled is, “Obama throws tantrum, doesn’t allow Ohio or Wisconsin to use taxpayer money how voters feel best.” Or, how ‘bout this one, “Obama punishes nearly 12 Million Ohioans for not voting Dem into office.”
By Jim from Dayton
December 10, 2010 5:32 AM | Link to this
Remember the last time gasoline hit nearly $4 a gallon? Well, jet fuel also went up, so high in fact that the airlines were talking about grounding their fleets if it went much higher. In this country, alas, we have no viable alternative for long-distance transportation than airplanes, having ditched passenger trains, for the most part, decades ago. I suspect that failing to secure federal dollars for this project will be looked upon by a future generation (or half generation!) as the height of folly. I am a registered Republican (and have been all my life) but I did not vote for Mr. Kasich. He is a fool, and we’re all beginning to see how much a fool he really is. Oh, and gasoline? It’s going up again—and approaching $3 a gallon!
By TYGO
December 10, 2010 7:11 AM | Link to this
And Mike, we’re broke because; Obama, in his less than 24 months in office has gotten us into this mess? Or perhaps the years of Republican pandering to the ultra wealthy and banks had something to do with it? The Bush administration got us into an incredibly costly war with the end result being, what? The Republican Party still insists on maintaining tax breaks for the 1% of the population that controls 24% of the personal wealth when eliminating these “temporary” tax breaks established under the Bush administration would significantly reduce the deficit? You can’t have it both ways. And I’m extremely happy you were at least paying attention in second grade when you learned about exclamation points and capitalization. Might I suggest your inane and uneducated comments might be a little more palatable if you would stop writing like a 10 year old.
By Yahoo
December 10, 2010 8:09 AM | Link to this
@TYGO: Wrong again! Neither the Repubs nor the DEMS got us into this war. It was the TERRORISTS (for Afgan) and Saddams continued violations of the Cease Fire agreements (Iraq), coupled with actionable intelligence from numerous credible sources (Sources that both the DEMS and Repus agreed was true long before GWB even was elected, and throughout the first 2 years of GW’s presidency.). Perhaps you might want to read a little into the subject matter before commenting again. The Clintons, Kerry, Gore, Shumer, Dodd, etc., ALL said the intelligence that GW relied upon for the Iraq assessment was in fact trustworthy. The lefties just keep beating a drum that has been proven wrong every time. As far as the train goes, it was a bad idea. As has been shown time and time again, gas would have to rise to $15/gallon under current the current cost of living scale, to be economically viable. Even at $3/gallon, gas has only risen $2/gal over the last 20 years. It would have been a colossal boondoggle that this state would never have recovered from. Good riddance to 3C SLOW rail. Gottlieb, the bearded wonder, will never get it! His head is so far up obamas butt, that if BO stops walking, Gottlieb will come out of Barry’s throat…
By Rob
December 10, 2010 9:29 AM | Link to this
Really? My Government owes me a train? To Cleveland? Honestly now, I can book a flight to Cleveland that only takes maybe an hour of actual air time for less than $400. Now if a Train Company thought they could front a viable option to that…GO FOR IT! But it’s not the job of my governmemt to make me a railroad…
By amanda
December 10, 2010 9:57 AM | Link to this
some blame goes to Ohio voters. Kasich and Strickland made their differing positions abundantly clear during the campaign.
By Yahoo
December 10, 2010 10:22 AM | Link to this
Blame for what? SAVING the Ohio Taxpayer from a boonedoggle that would have cost us hundreds of millions over the years? I would say the Ohio voters deserve CREDIT for voting out a simpleton and his worthless train.
By FAM
December 10, 2010 11:50 AM | Link to this
Rob - You don’t appear to have a problem with the Gov. providing you with highways, and Airports, why do you have a problem with Trains. Is it that you want what you want, and don’t care about what you don’t think you will use. How about all the people who never drive or fly, why should they pay for what you use. Yahoo - If you still believe that the US went into Iraq for any other reason than because President Bush, and his group wanted to, then I have a bridge to sell you.
By Mike R
December 10, 2010 11:56 AM | Link to this
TYGO, you need to take a reading comprehension course, or two. I never wrote that Obama is the cause of our monetary issues. I simply pointed out the obvious fact—We as a State and Country are BROKE. Don’t you want our elected leaders to address that very serious issue? In addition to that, Obama threw a hissy fit and punished Ohioans. Maybe I’ll write at the 2nd grade level next time—So you’ll have a better chance of understanding the topic!!! Jim, well before gas reached that price the railroads put into place a fuel surcharge. So, don’t kid yourself and think Amtrak or whoever the operator would be wouldn’t add a fuel surcharge to the price of a ticket.
By FAM
December 10, 2010 12:14 PM | Link to this
Mike - Consider the fact that the $400M would have gone to businesses in Ohio, and employees in Ohio, all who would be paying State Taxes. Regarding the President action, the money was ear marked for passenger Trains, and the Gov.said he didn’t want it, mainly because the Gov. believes everything should be in the hands of private sources. Your characterization of the Presidents response is a reflection of your bias, not reality. Regarding the fuel surcharges ; those added for trains, if needed, would be significantly lower, because of the much higher efficiency of the moving large numbers of people with one engine, as opposed to everyone in their own car. Finally, I don’t think you need to change your writing; your message and your biases are clear in everything you write.
By Yahoo
December 10, 2010 12:21 PM | Link to this
FAM, I love your argument here (idiotic one that it is). Please sit back and ponder this question: How many people drive on the highways EACH DAY? How many drive on the Highways EACH YEAR? How many people Fly EACH DAY, how many fly EACH YEAR? Hundreds of millions travel the highways each year is the answer. Millions FLY each year. How many do they estimate would ride the train each year? Less than 50,000. Now do you understand why we keep up the highways and Airports? Because people use them in the amounts to justify the expense. The LACK OF ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP IN TRAINS is what shows it to be an unjustified expense. It would be like building a bridge that 100 cars would cross each year at the expense of keeping up with a bridge that thousands would use each day. Think of the train as the bridge to no where..
By Yahoo
December 10, 2010 12:21 PM | Link to this
FAM, I love your argument here (idiotic one that it is). Please sit back and ponder this question: How many people drive on the highways EACH DAY? How many drive on the Highways EACH YEAR? How many people Fly EACH DAY, how many fly EACH YEAR? Hundreds of millions travel the highways each year is the answer. Millions FLY each year. How many do they estimate would ride the train each year? Less than 50,000. Now do you understand why we keep up the highways and Airports? Because people use them in the amounts to justify the expense. The LACK OF ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP IN TRAINS is what shows it to be an unjustified expense. It would be like building a bridge that 100 cars would cross each year at the expense of keeping up with a bridge that thousands would use each day. Think of the train as the bridge to no where..
By Yahoo
December 10, 2010 12:21 PM | Link to this
FAM, I love your argument here (idiotic one that it is). Please sit back and ponder this question: How many people drive on the highways EACH DAY? How many drive on the Highways EACH YEAR? How many people Fly EACH DAY, how many fly EACH YEAR? Hundreds of millions travel the highways each year is the answer. Millions FLY each year. How many do they estimate would ride the train each year? Less than 50,000. Now do you understand why we keep up the highways and Airports? Because people use them in the amounts to justify the expense. The LACK OF ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP IN TRAINS is what shows it to be an unjustified expense. It would be like building a bridge that 100 cars would cross each year at the expense of keeping up with a bridge that thousands would use each day. Think of the train as the bridge to no where..
By Yahoo
December 10, 2010 12:21 PM | Link to this
FAM, I love your argument here (idiotic one that it is). Please sit back and ponder this question: How many people drive on the highways EACH DAY? How many drive on the Highways EACH YEAR? How many people Fly EACH DAY, how many fly EACH YEAR? Hundreds of millions travel the highways each year is the answer. Millions FLY each year. How many do they estimate would ride the train each year? Less than 50,000. Now do you understand why we keep up the highways and Airports? Because people use them in the amounts to justify the expense. The LACK OF ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP IN TRAINS is what shows it to be an unjustified expense. It would be like building a bridge that 100 cars would cross each year at the expense of keeping up with a bridge that thousands would use each day. Think of the train as the bridge to no where..
By Yahoo
December 10, 2010 12:21 PM | Link to this
FAM, I love your argument here (idiotic one that it is). Please sit back and ponder this question: How many people drive on the highways EACH DAY? How many drive on the Highways EACH YEAR? How many people Fly EACH DAY, how many fly EACH YEAR? Hundreds of millions travel the highways each year is the answer. Millions FLY each year. How many do they estimate would ride the train each year? Less than 50,000. Now do you understand why we keep up the highways and Airports? Because people use them in the amounts to justify the expense. The LACK OF ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP IN TRAINS is what shows it to be an unjustified expense. It would be like building a bridge that 100 cars would cross each year at the expense of keeping up with a bridge that thousands would use each day. Think of the train as the bridge to no where..
By Yahoo
December 10, 2010 12:21 PM | Link to this
FAM, I love your argument here (idiotic one that it is). Please sit back and ponder this question: How many people drive on the highways EACH DAY? How many drive on the Highways EACH YEAR? How many people Fly EACH DAY, how many fly EACH YEAR? Hundreds of millions travel the highways each year is the answer. Millions FLY each year. How many do they estimate would ride the train each year? Less than 50,000. Now do you understand why we keep up the highways and Airports? Because people use them in the amounts to justify the expense. The LACK OF ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP IN TRAINS is what shows it to be an unjustified expense. It would be like building a bridge that 100 cars would cross each year at the expense of keeping up with a bridge that thousands would use each day. Think of the train as the bridge to no where..
By Yahoo
December 10, 2010 12:21 PM | Link to this
FAM, I love your argument here (idiotic one that it is). Please sit back and ponder this question: How many people drive on the highways EACH DAY? How many drive on the Highways EACH YEAR? How many people Fly EACH DAY, how many fly EACH YEAR? Hundreds of millions travel the highways each year is the answer. Millions FLY each year. How many do they estimate would ride the train each year? Less than 50,000. Now do you understand why we keep up the highways and Airports? Because people use them in the amounts to justify the expense. The LACK OF ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP IN TRAINS is what shows it to be an unjustified expense. It would be like building a bridge that 100 cars would cross each year at the expense of keeping up with a bridge that thousands would use each day. Think of the train as the bridge to no where..
By Yahoo
December 10, 2010 12:24 PM | Link to this
Sorry for the multiples
By FAM
December 10, 2010 12:40 PM | Link to this
Yahoo Where there are trains (i.e, NY, West Coast, etc.)there are large numbers of riders. Until there are trains running, you can Not know what the ridership will be. Your opinion is no better than anyone on the opposite side. But you missed the primary thrust of my comment to Rob - He complained about funding the trains because he has no need for the trains, but wants things like highways. so what about the other people who don’t need highways, but have to help pay for, regardless. By the way, one copy of your comment is sufficient.
By Yahoo
December 10, 2010 12:54 PM | Link to this
FAM, THIS IS NOT FREAKING NY/WEST COAST. The Population Demos are much different than freaking New England. Geez you are dense. As I explained, you dont spend HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS on a project that less than 3.5% of the population will use. THAT IS STUPID! AS has been explained over and over again, people will not use a rail system unless it is economically viable for them to use it. In this case, gas would need to rise to $15/gal before it would make sense. THAT is why it is not a project worthy of the expense. BTW, I apologized for the multiple posts, but I suppose you cant read that either….
By Mike R
December 10, 2010 1:55 PM | Link to this
FAM, The Gov. elect said he wanted the money—for other infrastructure impovements and development. That would have employed many Ohioans too. Just because money is earmarked to go to one particular sector doesn’t mean that money is being spent wisely. In the early 70’s we had money earmarked for additional Apollo missions, but we later canceled missions for being too costly. Nixon didn’t sit in the Oval Office and say, “nope, that money is earmarked for the assembly of Saturn V rockets, so darn it that’s what we’re going to spend our money on.”
By Nobdy
December 10, 2010 2:48 PM | Link to this
Mike: Kasich, who made killing the project a campaign promise, requested that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood allow him to use the $400 million on road construction and freight lines. But the law authorizing passenger rail funding stipulated it can’t be used for other purposes.
By FAM
December 10, 2010 2:49 PM | Link to this
Yahoo - Because you say it is only 3.5% and that it would take $15/gal doesn’t make it majically true. Here are some facts: Ohio Budget for highways $12.5M/yr, 1.3 M for Airport runways, plus $1.9B in Federal Money for Ohio Roads, bridges, air ports among other infrastructure. that is about $2B for the year. Using your figure of 3.5% ridership, then if we set aside 3.5% of that budget for rail travel, it would total $70M. the projected cost per year for Ohio to maintain the trains is $17M far less than the 3.5%’s share. And I am not including the costs of the Highway patrol, or the Air Traffic controllers, etc. Opinions don’t require any time or effort, analysis takes time, but has some value. Mike - As you pointed out in your analogy, the President decided where the Space funding went, not the Gov. of Texas or Florida, so why should the Ohio have this time?
By Yahoo
December 10, 2010 2:59 PM | Link to this
But you FAIL to mention that the percentages of people driving on the highways and travelling by air FAR EXCEEDS the percentages of people who would travel by rail under th emost optomistic of projections. Yyou are talking 50,000 ppl /yr as compared to hundreds of MILLIONS on highways and MILLIONS on airways… If 100 million travel the highways per yr at a cost of 1.9 billion to keep them up, that equates to 19 bucks per traveller. 17 million to keep up a rail for 50,000 riders? You do the math. Which is cheaper? Which moves more people? Which promotes more tourism? Which produces more growth? If you think rail is a good idea for Ohio, I have some land in florida I will sell ya…
By Mike R
December 10, 2010 3:27 PM | Link to this
Nobdy, that’s why Obama rushed this through, via LaHood. There were at least 3 bills in Congress that would have either given the money back to the Fed to pay down debt or for states to use in other infrastructure projects. Obama and team knew the new Congress would create additional bills and would pass something not of his liking. FAM, Nixon knew there wasn’t going to be any riders (astronauts)—so why build Saturn V’s, anywhere? So, NASA came up with a better plan and what the low-earth orbit market wanted—The Space Shuttle. Obama/LaHood obviously don’t care if there practically aren’t any riders or market—they’re still going to build it—just somewhere else. As far as budgets go, according to Randal O’Toole, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, he believes “most rail projects have gone at least 40 percent over budget,” and many will go higher. Studying Parsons Brinckerhoff’s past and current projects (they would have been the lead contractor here in Ohio) our annual subsidy would have been much closer to the $70-80 Millon nut. AECOM works closely with PB America on these projects and their initial projections have been way off target…$17 million/yr subsidy wouldn’t come close to reality. For reference, just look at how far behind schedule and how overbudget California’s high-speed rail is currently.
By FAm
December 10, 2010 3:45 PM | Link to this
Yahoo - Ohio does not have 100’s of millions of people. the 3.5% figure (Yours) was a percentage of the Ohio population. Try to stay with one premise at a time when doing your analysis. Use the figure for the other 96.55 of the Ohio population. Sorry you got conned into buying Florida land.
By FAM
December 10, 2010 4:04 PM | Link to this
Mike - The CATO source is not exactly an objective source. A senior researcher at any institue should not believe anything, he should research the topic, collect all the objective data he can, and provide his analysis of that data. If he is going to report over-runs of 40%, he had better have the data to backup that statement, and provide the data and analysis for peer review. AECOM is a more reasonable source - they have an international reputation, and currently have two Subway projects they are managing. Unfortunately, a large percentage of projects end up over budget (i.e., the Highway hub in boston, etc.).
By Yahoo
December 10, 2010 4:13 PM | Link to this
@FAM: I see reading comprehension/retention is not a strong suit for you. Where did I say Ohio’s population is 100 million? I said 100 million people TRAVEL on the highways each year through Ohio. That makes them a viable use of money for Ohio. Millions travel Ohio’s highways each year. THAT is why we must maintain them. 50,000 at BEST would use a train each yr, and once the novelty wears off, even less. Additionally, you are comparing HIGH Speed rail and mass transit of CA and NY to this as if they are equal. They are NOT Equal. This is slow speed rail, to specific points, a few times daily. No where near comparable to NY or CA systems. Your topic comprehension skills are also lacking.
By Retired Sgt
December 10, 2010 4:17 PM | Link to this
Guys, it is a moot issue. The train project is dead. I for one am glad, because I came down on the side of those who agree it is a costly venture for the return we would get. It is unfortunate though that the money couldnt have been used for other projects that are, at the very least, as worthy, if not more worthy infrastructure projects that would have put more people to work than the trains would have.
By Retired Sgt
December 10, 2010 4:18 PM | Link to this
Guys, it is a moot issue. The train project is dead. I for one am glad, because I came down on the side of those who agree it is a costly venture for the return we would get. It is unfortunate though that the money couldnt have been used for other projects that are, at the very least, as worthy, if not more worthy infrastructure projects that would have put more people to work than the trains would have.
By FAM
December 10, 2010 4:39 PM | Link to this
Yahoo - the 3.5% (your figure) is of Ohio popualtion. The $2B is Ohio funds available. If the 3.5% of the Ohio Population received their fair share of the funds they would get $70M. Enoght to suppor tthe rail. Try to follow the presentation, not what you want to see to support your position. Sgt. Unfortunately, for now you are correct. I just think it is important that projects and ideas are judged based upon accurate data and objective analysis, not opinions, biases, vested interests, and which group introduce and support the project/idea.
By Yahoo
December 10, 2010 4:45 PM | Link to this
Lets see if you can follow this: 50,000 riders, millions to start the project, millions to support project for 50,000 people. Ohio DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO OPERATE OR SUSTAIN IT! GET it yet? Take a look at RTA’s ridership. Those are the numbers of people riding the train. Empty train, quite a drain….on the budget. If it is such a grerqat idea, private industry would be running toward it. They arent. Why? Bad idea. @Sarge: you are exactly correct, but BO must punish those who vote against him…
By Mike R
December 10, 2010 4:49 PM | Link to this
My bad, FAM. I should have written that sentence like this: As far as budgets go, according to Randal O’Toole, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, “most rail projects have gone at least 40 percent over budget, and many will go higher.” Please, don’t let my poor grammar, or sentence structure, get in the way of the real facts!! The “Big Dig” in Boston had an initial projected cost of $2.6 Billion. When PB America was done the final bill was $14.6 Billion—460% over budget. Here’s a link to some facts and data that back up Mr. O’Toole’s findings about rail. It’s from the office of the California State Auditor. http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/factsheets/2009-106.pdf
By Mike R
December 10, 2010 4:52 PM | Link to this
My bad, FAM. I should have written that sentence like this: As far as budgets go, according to Randal O’Toole, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, “most rail projects have gone at least 40 percent over budget, and many will go higher.” Please, don’t let my poor grammar, or sentence structure, get in the way of the real facts!! The “Big Dig” in Boston had an initial projected cost of $2.6 Billion. When PB America was done the final bill was $14.6 Billion—460% over budget. Here’s a link to some facts and data that back up Mr. O’Toole’s findings about rail. It’s from the office of the California State Auditor. http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/factsheets/2009-106.pdf
By Ronald Reagan
December 10, 2010 6:27 PM | Link to this
@Fam - “There you go again.” That $400 million from the Feds is spit in the choo choo boiler and wouldn’t even scratch the surface of installing this boondoggle Petticoat Junction rail system let alone maintain it or subsidize it’s operations. Your figures are a fallacy derived from incomplete data. Is my grammar sufficient for you to understand or do you consider it as Mike’s because you disagree?
By Michael Miller
December 10, 2010 7:06 PM | Link to this
What a genius Kasuch is… Ohio doesn’t need 400 million to invest in itself.As we begin to face peak oil, we won’t need alternative transportation.It’s wonderful we elected a man who looks to the past to try and see our future.By the way,Reaganomics is cause of our massive debt.Reagan another man of vision put us on this debt laden path to hell. Read some history.As for Gov. Kasick Lets start the recall now!
By Ronald Reagan
December 10, 2010 7:23 PM | Link to this
I never liked the name Miller. It reminds me of foul tasting beer. All foam and no substance - much like the Democratic party.
By Michael Miller
December 10, 2010 7:26 PM | Link to this
Truth hurt? Reagan was a free spending cretin.
By Ronald Reagan
December 10, 2010 7:31 PM | Link to this
Reagan begged for the line item veto - your doneky a*s congress and Tip O’Neil continued to pork barrel every bill - those are the facts. I lived through the era you are probably reading some leftist literature about the time. Why don’t you read about his predecessor Jimmy Carter.
By Michael Miller
December 10, 2010 7:39 PM | Link to this
50 yrs old and remember Reagan’s failure like it was yesterday. Iran-Contra ring a bell? You going to tell Reagan wasn’t responsible a massive debt?Really? David Stockman ring a bell? Debter nation status?
By Mark W
December 10, 2010 7:43 PM | Link to this
Out here in Seattle, our paper today reported that Washington State will get an extra $161M for rail projects courtesy of Wisconsin and Ohio governor-elects dropping their plans. How the money is to be spent is to be determined, but moving passenger trains in the Cascade corridor (Eugene, Portland, Olympia, Tacoma, Seattle, Everett up to the Canadian border) off of freight lines is a priority to get the speeds up. Current speed limits are 79mph with the goal of getting them up to the 90-120 range. Of course, the corridor has population density, parts of the drive are severely congested at all times of day (I allot 90 minutes to drive from Seattle to south of Tacoma midday, just 35 miles) due to heavy traffic, and cities like Seattle and Portland have the high-use downtowns and local transportation infrastructure that most visitors don’t need cars to get to their actual destinations in those cities (I can get from my Seattle apartment to a downtown Portland hotel with only about 5 blocks of walking). No driving from the suburbs to downtown, finding a place to pay to park my car for the duration of the trip, as I would were I to try to take a comparable train trip from where I lived in metro Dayton to Cleveland. Thanks for the money, Gov-elect Kasich, and of course the folks that the federal government is borrowing the money from.
By Michael miller
December 10, 2010 8:00 PM | Link to this
Your welcome Mark,may the intelligent enjoy.We here in Dayton (Birthplace of the Wright Bros.)hate those who have the guts to have a vision for the future. Peak oil. Other forms of transportation will be the key to real economic long term success. Our Governor is a man of the past. Men of the past probably aren’t what we need now. Our children need us to be dreamers. America was first a dream.
By Ronald Reagan
December 10, 2010 8:59 PM | Link to this
It just goes to show how viable train transportation is in certain regions of the country and how ineffective and a waste of money it is in others. It’s like a snow shovel in the desert so what’s the argument?
By Ed
December 11, 2010 8:42 AM | Link to this
Mike R what part of “it takes money to make money” don’t you understand? You and others like you don’t get it. Not all gov’t spending and gov’t debt is bad. If the expenditure is going to create MORE in economic activity and tax revenue and offsets of other costs to the public treasury, then it’s worth spending the money. The 3C would have done all of these things at considerably more than its costs— jobs, re-development of downtowns, supporting Ohio’s 225 rail industry suppliers, reducing highway damage (from the freight component of this project which would have diverted freight from trucks to trains), etc. In short, it would have MORE than paid for itself. Instead, we have a governor-elect who thinks only the private sector should be doing this, but doesn’t think the private sector should be involved in highways. He’s a Hypocrite with a capital “H”, and short sighted. Furthermore, what are the Mike R’s and John Kasich’s of this state going to tell Ohioans when gas hits $4 or $5+ dollars a gallon or worse. The Pentagon is concerned about oil supplies after 2014. That’s not very far away folks.
By Ed
December 11, 2010 9:03 AM | Link to this
Hey Ronald Reagan and everyone else who thinks prez Reagan is blameless for running up debt, obviously, none of you have ever looked through the public records available to every citizen, if you take the time: Every budget Reagan ever submitted to Congress had huge deficits. In fact, 6 out of 8 years, those deficits were BIGGER than the ones Congress ultimately passed. One of the two other years, the difference was only $1 billion. David Stockman, his first budget director, said flat out in his book “The Triumph of Politics” that Reagan’s strategy was to run up the debt in order to turn people against social programs (his book wasn’t a Reagan hit piece either. Stockman was all for it).
By Ed
December 11, 2010 9:14 AM | Link to this
Yahoo wrote: “If it is such a grerqat idea, private industry would be running toward it. They arent. Why? Bad idea.” If highways are such a great idea, why didn’t private industry build them? Because they don’t make any money. Private industry only got interested in the Indiana Toll Road after it was already built. Now, they aren’t interested in the Ohio Turnpike, because it won’t make them enough money (Kasich has already backed off on privatizing it). As for rail, every place in the country where a state has invested in a rail corridor like the 3C: A). People ride in droves. B). The economic development alone that results more than covers the costs. Ohio is more densely populated than all but one of those other states.
By Mike R
December 11, 2010 11:03 AM | Link to this
Ed, there’s a huge difference between making sound investments, that in the long-run, have positive monetary dividends, for both the private and public sectors. Then there are those, like many gov’t projects, that don’t make money no matter how much coin is pumped into them and their social benefits are very limited in scope. Freight would NOT be diverted from it’s current route. The NS & CSXT already have well established lines in Ohio and it was those lines that would have been upgraded. The primary haulings of those Class I railroads are coal, automotive products, grain, and wood products. There’s nothing that passes through Ohio currently on truck, via interstates, that would be transfered to rail. And, there is little frt that either originates or has a final destination in the Buckeye state that would have seen its mode of transportation change under the 3C+D plan. Hydrocarbons is an issue and it’s why we NEED a STRONG ENERGY Policy!! The 3C+D has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with our energy policy, or lack thereof. Just over 40% of a barrel of oil goes into gasoline and when supplies become tight you wont just be worried about the price of gas. In your second post, Ed, you hit the nail on the head—We have a Spending Problem—Killing the 3C+D is the right thing in addressing that issue.
By Modern Esquire
December 13, 2010 9:02 AM | Link to this
Yahoo- Over 100,000 Ohioans rode the existing passenger rail systems in the past year. You’re claim that only 50,000 would ride the 3C, therefore, is false. You’re off by a factor of ten. That would put the number of people riding passenger rail equal to the number of Ohioans who fly.
By Persrspective
December 13, 2010 3:06 PM | Link to this
Very limited schedule,slow speed,high ticket prices,the need for subsidies,all these killed the 3C project.When they come back with a plan for HSR then I might back it but not this dinosaur.It will use existing freight rail lines,the owners of which have not even been asked if their rail lines could be used for 3C.
By dab45
December 13, 2010 4:58 PM | Link to this
A few earlier points I wanted to address: 1. Mike R. is correct in pointing out the essence oil has on our entire economy. What I believe he fails to recognize is when oil scarcity hits hard and the economy tanks, a massive shift in economic activities less reliant on oil will ensue. Most activities will be local/regional and not national/global. The first casualties in this new economy will be suburbia and the private automobile.At this point we’ll have wished we not only invested in 3c, but commuter rail, public transit rail and an entire state/regional wide passenger system as well!! True high speed rail will never happen now or in the future. Imagine the costs of such a project. For all my fellow Democrats, our Republican brethren are correct on the count that we are broke at every level of government. How can we expect to build true high speed when we’re bickering over less than a billion dollar project. Ever seen these costs? Enough to make Mr. Kasich’s head spontaneously explode. The window of time in which we possibly could have developed sustainable, regional high speed rail was spent on building suburbia and the tremendous highway systems that helped define us as the world’s most prosperous, yet consumptive people in the history of the world. Some folks against rail development capitalize on the facts that highways deserve the subsidies due to the numbers of people who use these roads. Do these same folks oppose all suburban and feeder road development? Most suburban roads are safe for an afternoon siesta in the middle of the road. Do these folks lobby for mixed use, dense development on the premise we could save bundles on the infrastructure costs?
By Busy Bee
December 13, 2010 5:33 PM | Link to this
@Persrspective “It will use existing freight rail lines,the owners of which have not even been asked if their rail lines could be used for 3C.” Hilarious since the private freight railroads were essentially only able to assemble this invaluable ribbon of ROW across the country because the Federal government gave them the land for FREE! Which they profited from immensely over the last 100-150 years. And to think they resist public financed passenger trains running on ‘their’ rails with such vigor… sickening. Read ‘Waiting on a Train.’ It’s a fantastic book that really lays out the dirty secret that Amtrak was designed to fail and the private freight RR’s, with the exception of a few, have done everything in their power to drive Amtrak into the ground. It’s for this reason, I would support the notion of a mandate to cooperate with public passenger rail endeavors, creating a ‘steel interstate’ not on freight tracks but in freight ROW. This would be a huge win-win - freight railroads could be over the years converted to clean electric operation like one would find seemingly in every other industrialized nation. And if the private freight RR’s resist?… nationalize the infrastructure(like and airport) and charge the bastards rent. This would probably encourage competition anyways and help lower the costs of both freight and passenger rail.
By Busy Bee
December 13, 2010 5:34 PM | Link to this
@Persrspective “It will use existing freight rail lines,the owners of which have not even been asked if their rail lines could be used for 3C.” Hilarious since the private freight railroads were essentially only able to assemble this invaluable ribbon of ROW across the country because the Federal government gave them the land for FREE! Which they profited from immensely over the last 100-150 years. And to think they resist public financed passenger trains running on ‘their’ rails with such vigor… sickening. Read ‘Waiting on a Train.’ It’s a fantastic book that really lays out the dirty secret that Amtrak was designed to fail and the private freight RR’s, with the exception of a few, have done everything in their power to drive Amtrak into the ground. It’s for this reason, I would support the notion of a mandate to cooperate with public passenger rail endeavors, creating a ‘steel interstate’ not on freight tracks but in freight ROW. This would be a huge win-win - freight railroads could be over the years converted to clean electric operation like one would find seemingly in every other industrialized nation. And if the private freight RR’s resist?… nationalize the infrastructure(like and airport) and charge the bastards rent. This would probably encourage competition anyways and help lower the costs of both freight and passenger rail.
By Mike R
December 13, 2010 7:38 PM | Link to this
Modern Esquire, Kurt is off, the projected ridership (based upon AECOM’s study) had Ohio’s 3C+D ridership at 478,000 annually. But your #’s are also off. There are a heck of a lot more Ohioans who fly than would take the train. In just the first six months of this year alone Dayton Int’l Airport had passenger boardings of 607,000 (http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2010/07/19/daily44.html). @dab45, I believe light-rail/interurbans, commuter rail/intracity rail should be developed for the Miami Valley, Columbus, and Cincy. Cleveland already has that and when demand for hydrocarbons exceeds supply we will need that local mode of transportation. I believe it will also help revive Dayton. But that’s not what was proposed—and I was adamantly opposed to that project. @Busy Bee, Don’t just blame the railroads—Blame the Gov’t too! Railroads paid property taxes on those lines. It came down to bean counters and they looked at the revenue per line vs. taxes. Once lines were deemed unprofitable those lines were disbanded, which was allowed by the gov’t. If our elected leaders had any inkling of foward thinking they could’ve come up with numerous ways to keep those lines operational (e.g. tax credits for establishing or allowing passenger rail). But that’s not what they did. Why?? The pressure by many Dems (Green) was to allow railroads walk away from their lines so we could all feel good about the green effects of turning rails to trails.
By dab45
December 13, 2010 10:06 PM | Link to this
mike r., how can the revenue be raised to support the local rail infrastructures? As stated, local governments are all broke, and with the new Kasich administration certain to cut funding to local transit agencies and municipal governments as well as and cut taxes, I foresee a whole in the state budget dug all the way to China. The governor elect said he wanted flexibility to use the 400 million as he saw fit. Never during these discussions did he mention expanding/creating intra-urban anything or commuter rail. Why not? My hunch is that this guy is not a clear thinking Republican but a rabid ideologue who doesn’t believe a hydrocarbon crisis looms on the horizon. I believe that he thinks all we have to do is drill baby drill and our exceptionalism, which the God of prosperity so benevolently smiles upon, will secure an endless supply of oil. I hope I’m wrong. Also, Cleveland has a two line rapid transit system that doesn’t even traverse to the county line. It is dismally inadequate and the local rta, along with various advocacy boards have studied it’s expansion for decades. Again, the funding is always unavailable due to the required initial capital investments. What has been needed all along and has been unavailable heretofore is the federal involvement.
By NCF
December 15, 2010 12:37 PM | Link to this
Dang. A new 3C+D thread, and I just posted to the previous one. Oh well.
By Mike R
December 15, 2010 9:05 PM | Link to this
dab45, A couple of points. One, I don’t believe any Federal money that was alloted is going to other projects, including other states, except “high-speed” rail. Obama and LaHood made that very clear. Kaisch didn’t pitch other rail projects, but based on LaHood’s statements and Obama’s insistence that money couldn’t be used for Cleveland’s interurban improvements or other commuter projects. Remember, there was pending legislation in Congress to allow states to spend the money differently. In those bills there may have been provisions to spend our money on commuter rail (probably in other states), but Obama doled out the money only for high-speed rail before the new Congress could vote—or better legislation proposed. Two, the incentives of the tax code are used primarily to get people/businesses to invest in what the gov’t believes will have positive long-term economic and social benefits. That’s why the money needed to create intracity commuter rail will have to come from the railroads. Let’s give them tax credits and abatements for their construction/improvements allowing passenger rail. You know, dab45, a lot of Dem commentators, in this forum and others, drink the Kool-Aid and believe the GOP only looks out for big business while the Democratic Party would NEVER do such a thing. Hmmm. Well, much of the $400 Million was to upgrade CSX and NS lines in Ohio. Last year CSX had record profits of $6.2 BILLION. NSC didn’t have record profits, but they still reported gross profits of $5.2 BILLION. And yet, you and many of your ilk think the taxpayer should spend $400 Million of our money to upgrade their lines for something very few people will take advantage.
By dab45
December 16, 2010 4:17 PM | Link to this
MikeR, You are correct that the legislation specifically earmarked funding for “high speed rail.” I was aware of this fact, so I took Mr. Kasich’s meeting with the president at face value. Of course he knew the president and secretary of transportation would not allow the funds to be used more “flexibly.” This was a clear case of political shibboleth intended to demonstrate to his constituents just whom they elected. What I was trying to point out,though, is that during every news conference in regards to the 400 million, never has the governor-elect hinted of any flexibility towards modes of transport beyond automobile infrastructure and freight rail. This is the crux of my argument against this specific republican. Voinovich,Taft and innumerable republican law makers have made multi-modal transportation important topics of exploration. You’ve expressed an openess towards rail development. I don’t think Mr. Kasich believes it can play a vital roll in the 21st century economy of waning hydrocarbons and I believe he is fecklessly mistaken. As to the unctious manner by which the Democratic pols ignore how their own capitulate to big business, you’re preaching to the choir. Yet, in today’s political/social environment it would be politically inexpedient and quite frankly bad for the nation to remain intransigent in our positions. As for myself, upgrading corporate rail lines is unpalatable but a principled compromise. My preferences, which I believe would’ve saved our nation alot of wasted money resources and produced a more stable,inclusive and sustainable economy would be: A public system of regional, high speed rails; interstate highways which did not penetrate existing communities; huge investment, both public and private in non-sprawling infrastructure rather than subsidizing exurban development,which created bubbles of fantastic, short term, unsustainable growth. We opted out of this living arrangement long ago. The question remains whether we will continue to spend our personal and national wealth(what little is left)on an infrastructure and living arrangement with no long term future, or will we respond to reality’s dictums and begin to redevelop our public and passenger rail systems at every level. Hypothetically, if we were under the old regime of cheap oil infinitum, trains polluted the air equally as the private auto, the need to curb greenhouse gases wasn’t an imperitive and the potential for long term growth in ridership didn’t exist due to a more environmentally conscious generation y and millenials and an aging onslaught of baby boomers, then this and other rail projects would be unaffordable to subsidies during recessionary periods and a questionable return on investment during all other times of growth. But I believe that reality has made it clear that we can’t afford not to support 3c.
By Kasich= Lost Jobs
December 17, 2010 11:00 AM | Link to this
Dab 45 is right on the mark. Kasich’s vision is backward thinking at its best. No wonder we’re continuing to lose ground to the coasts.
By NCF
December 17, 2010 12:25 PM | Link to this
Just exactly WHO do you people think are going to be riding these trains??
By Mike R
December 17, 2010 2:11 PM | Link to this
Interesting perspective dab45. We’ll have to create some public/private parternships…I haven’t seen anything proposed yet that excites me. Supporting the 3C+D won’t be the panacea for 50+ years of our compounding problems. I have a feeling you know that…As far as Ohio losing ground to the coasts, not really. California is struggling and in the last few years has actually lost population due to out migration to more biz friendly/fiscally stable states. New York has the same problem…high taxes have driven many people to friendlier states. The growth over the next 25 years will continue to be in the Sun Belt and some inter-Mountain/Western States.
By NCF
December 17, 2010 3:35 PM | Link to this
Maybe you have an idea, MikeR, as to who is supposedly going to be riding this 3C+D train. I know that the DoT website alleges a ridership of “at least 478,000,” but there’s really nothing presented to substantiate that claim. At best there is an article about the Amtrack study, but no real data from the study is presented. I cannot believe that people would use the 3C+D to commute to work anywhere by this rail, with the possible exception of from Cincy to Dayton and back. But even with that subset of Cincy-to-Dayton commuters, how many would REALLY give up their cars to ride the train?
By Mike R
December 17, 2010 6:10 PM | Link to this
Amtrak did do a study so did AECOM. How they actually came up with those ridership numbers is a bit fuzzy, but 478K is the “gold standard.” In their projections they cited college students as a large contingent and used OSU’s campus (two miles from proposed station) as an example. Based on the original proposed schedule I couldn’t see any full-time students commuting to The Ohio State from the Miami Valley as the student might be able to catch just a couple of classes/day before they had to catch a train home. And, seriously, what person wants to go to OSU without partying on High Street?? The train schedule wouldn’t allow that! :-( Also, the schedule wasn’t conducive for regular work commuting—as you pointed out. They also factored in the retired baby boomer traveling too. That propably would have happened, at first, but once the novelty wore off it wouldn’t have supplied a steady ridership. For rail to work here (critical ridership numbers), it has to be local, very local, with many stations located throughout the Miami Valley with Dayton as a hub. There has to be trains every 15-20 minutes every rush hour, with hourly service during non rush hours. The same is true for Cincy and Columbus. Now, Dayton has another hurdle those two cities don’t have…Large employers and employment bases within the city. The study cites the population corridor of 6+ Million, but they don’t account for a lack of feeder systems to the station. For instance, if you live in Centerville/Kettering/Springboro once you’re in your car, and with the exception of your green guilty conscience, you would be better served to drive to Cincy than to drive to Dayton, if you are motivated by time/convience/money. Time/convience/Money accounts for 99+% of all potential 3C+D riders…That’s just taking human behavior into account—The study didn’t do that.
By Mort Dayton
December 18, 2010 7:33 AM | Link to this
Are people in Dayton aware of the fact that Charity Navigator (evaluates health and efficiency of non-profits) has give their lowest rating (one star) to The Dayton Phil, The Dayton Ballet, and The Dayton Art Institute?
By Mort Dayton
December 18, 2010 7:33 AM | Link to this
Are people in Dayton aware of the fact that Charity Navigator (evaluates health and efficiency of non-profits) has give their lowest rating (one star) to The Dayton Phil, The Dayton Ballet, and The Dayton Art Institute?
By NCF
December 20, 2010 12:04 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Mike R
By Mark W
December 20, 2010 8:22 PM | Link to this
Just did a check on the Greyhound website. They offer more departures from Columbus to Cleveland or Cincinnati per day than the trains will. About $20 to Cincy, about $30-$40 to Cleveland depending on options. At $17M year tax-paid train operation subsidy, that’s a $35/passenger subsidy in addition to the actual train fares for Amtrak’s 478K rider projection - for rides that are about as fast (if not faster for those routed through Dayton when traveling between Columbus and Cincy). And that doesn’t even include the cost of actually building the lines (the $400M seed money Kasich turned down, and the rest needed to fully build the line). Taxpayers could hand out a half million free bus tickets/year, create lots of jobs at Greyhound, and save a ton of money in construction costs. Sure, Europe’s got some impressive train service. But Europeans ride a lot of buses, too.