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 > 2011 > January > 07 > Entry
Editorial: What comes after death of train plan?
With the death of 3C, Ohio needs to start thinking about another approach to passenger train service, most specifically about privately funded high-speed rail.
The great rap on 3C — the plan to run conventional-speed trains from northeast to southwest Ohio via Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati, through Dayton — was that it was too slow and would cost the state money.
Some critics of 3C said shorter routes with faster trains would make more economic sense, say from Dayton to Cincinnati or from Cleveland to Akron.
Unfortunately, however, before 3C came along, nobody suggested anything like that, decade after decade.
Maybe now.
Some longtime participants in train issues believe that forces in the private sector are interested in investing in high-speed rail in Ohio.
Others are dubious, saying the costs are just too high, making the dead 3C project look cheap.
What’s clear is that Ohio is a perfect train state. Skeptics about pending high-speed rail projects in other states have complained about planned “trains to nowhere.” That’s not a problem here, where big cities are an hour or two apart.
If there’s any state where private investment might happen, some say, it’s here.
Certainly chambers of commerce and other business organizations like the idea of having passenger service to and from their cities. And developers showed during the fight about 3C that they were eager to site projects at train stations.
Companies that make and service trains certainly have a stake in supporting new systems.
With the federal government pushing for a national system — making for the possibility of improved service for Ohioans thinking of longer trips — the time may be right. It is certainly improving.
Furthermore, some parts of the private sector these days actually have money, having recovered from the recession. If the rejection of 3C results in Ohio making the leap to high-speed — as opposed to starting with conventional trains as a stepping stone, as other states have — then the people who turned down 3C will look at lot better.
As of now, here’s the Los Angeles Times commenting on California getting Ohio’s 3C money.
“Outraged by excessive stimulus spending? Worried that construction of new infrastructure in your state will create operating costs lasting well into the future?
“If you’re a Republican governor with such troubles on your mind, we have the solution: “Send the federal money to California. The Golden State is more than willing to relieve you of the burden of all that free cash.
“Remarkably, the governors of Wisconsin and Ohio seem to have taken us up on an offer so disadvantageous that the most shameless infomercial producer would hesitate to promote it. …
“Why would they do such a thing? Because it would cost taxpayer money to operate the rail lines after they’re built. … As train supporters pointed out to The New York Times, this is sort of like turning down a free car because you don’t want to have to pay for gasoline and insurance.
“Thanks a billion, cheese-heads.”
Why Ohioans are supposed to be covered by the word “cheeseheads” is not clear, but you get the idea. “Thanks a billion, buckeyes,” doesn’t resonate.
Other commentators from Florida to North Carolina to New York have commented similarly, if less colorfully.
That doesn’t cinch the case against 3C, of course. Still, it would be nice to have the last laugh.
TweetPlease share your comments on our facebook page.
