Do you support the proposed Ohio Rail (3-C Connector)? (Columbus: transfer, subsidized)

[Clevelander17]

Originally Posted by Ohioan58

^ Truth.

The people against the rail funding will make smart@ssed comments about not seeing immediate economic apocalypse.

Falling behind is an incremental, gradual process and Ohio has gotten superbly talented at doing it on a methodical basis since about 1975 and you can't point to one phenomenon that "caused" it. Stagnation is a cultural effect, it becomes rooted in an area's identity, and we're there.

It's not an immediate phenomenon. Some company decides to relocate in state X or Y instead of Ohio because the infrastructure is better elsewhere and they see better accessibility and access to workers. That process plays out over weeks, months, years. In time Ohio bleeds jobs and opportunity but there is never a single event that you can identify.

That's why I said that rail is a speculation - a long term business investment - on the part of government. Just as tea baggers preach about individual initiative to invest somewhat blindly in business, there are types of infrastructure that it only makes sense for government to invest in, and the payoff to the government is an increased tax base over years or decades.

This is a large scale version of the penny pinching business owner who drives the company out of business by hassling everyone about the staples and office copies they use and who refuses to spend money to modernize. It seems to make survival sense to conservatively save short term funds but it can kill you when the money leverages jobs and growth indirectly.

You get obsessed with mere survival and as a result you don't build anything for the future. That characterizes Ohio to a "T".

Government spending on infrastructure makes sense and is necessary. However, spending it on trains is a complete waste.

If Ohio is struggling now, it's because we've been so anti-business for so long. That's what's holding us back--not the fact that we haven't made and aren't going to make an investment in a 19th century transportation system in a state that simply doesn't have the density to support it.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by Clevelander17

We don't need an alternate form of transportation, just a renewable fuel source. Trains are not the future.

I'd love to hear what kind of of private investment would come to Ohio with the 3-C corridor? Let's not talk pie-in-the-sky, but realistic. It's just not reality...

What about the increasing number of people who can't--or prefer not to--drive? I'm one of those who can't, but know many who would prefer not to drive, or drive less.

When we have this renewable fuel source (and I agree that it's a good idea) how will we fund the roads then? Sure, gas taxes don't completely cover the costs of roads now. But, do we want to make it worse?

Originally Posted by Clevelander17

Government spending on infrastructure makes sense and is necessary. However, spending it on trains is a complete waste.

If Ohio is struggling now, it's because we've been so anti-business for so long. That's what's holding us back--not the fact that we haven't made and aren't going to make an investment in a 19th century transportation system in a state that simply doesn't have the density to support it.

Just how much density do we need? I believe we're the 9th most dense state in the U.S.

[DarkWolf]

If trains aren't the future why is the Northeast rebuilding 18,000+ miles of lines? Why are poor Asia countries rebuilding there systems? Its cheap and stimulates growth and strengths the economy. As long as your cities are becoming dense theres no reason for your state which is dying like the rest in the great lakes region....not to build a connector system. Or intercity Railways......I think your state is looking at a dark road ahead if it doesn't come up with a long term Transportation plan like other states have.

[Traveler87]

We don't have enough density? Ohio is the densest corridor that is NOT linked by rail. Ohio is 7th in population... 11.5 million people. We would be linking 4 metro areas, all over 1 million people, and three of those with over 2 million.

[Clevelander17]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

If trains aren't the future why is the Northeast rebuilding 18,000+ miles of lines? Why are poor Asia countries rebuilding there systems? Its cheap and stimulates growth and strengths the economy. As long as your cities are becoming dense theres no reason for your state which is dying like the rest in the great lakes region....not to build a connector system. Or intercity Railways......I think your state is looking at a dark road ahead if it doesn't come up with a long term Transportation plan like other states have.

Hilarious that the guy from New Jersey is calling Ohio a "dying state." The only thing saving NJ's bacon at this point is its proximity to NYC and its brass-balled governor. If you don't want him, we'll take him.

Rail is not cheap, and government spending does not stimulate growth or strengthen the economy. And what do you know about Ohio's transportation plan other than we're not building the train albatross?

[Clevelander17]

Originally Posted by Traveler87

We don't have enough density? Ohio is the densest corridor that is NOT linked by rail. Ohio is 7th in population... 11.5 million people. We would be linking 4 metro areas, all over 1 million people, and three of those with over 2 million.

So why did the plan call for so many rural stops? Great idea, let's make a slow train go even slower by bogging it down with stops in towns that haven't even gotten past horse and buggy?

[Clevelander17]

Originally Posted by JR_C

What about the increasing number of people who can't--or prefer not to--drive? I'm one of those who can't, but know many who would prefer not to drive, or drive less.

When we have this renewable fuel source (and I agree that it's a good idea) how will we fund the roads then? Sure, gas taxes don't completely cover the costs of roads now. But, do we want to make it worse?

a) What about buses? Greyhound and other private companies have found it worthwhile to connect between all of the major Ohio cities.

b) I'm sure the government will find a way slap high taxes on the next big automobile energy source.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by Clevelander17

Hilarious that the guy from New Jersey is calling Ohio a "dying state." The only thing saving NJ's bacon at this point is its proximity to NYC and its brass-balled governor. If you don't want him, we'll take him.

Rail is not cheap, and government spending does not stimulate growth or strengthen the economy. And what do you know about Ohio's transportation plan other than we're not building the train albatross?

Sure it does! Since we're talking about transportation spending, the first example that comes to mind is the boom of suburban sprawl, spurred by government spending on highways.

Originally Posted by Clevelander17

a) What about buses? Greyhound and other private companies have found it worthwhile to connect between all of the major Ohio cities.

b) I'm sure the government will find a way slap high taxes on the next big automobile energy source.

A: Buses are still subject to the same problems as cars, like: increased fuel costs, and traffic delays. They also have their own problems. Everytime I've taken a Greyhound to Cleveland, it's been filled to capacity, (very uncomfortable) and/or very late. (twice, the bus was scheduled to leave at 5:25 p.m., and I didn't get into Cleveland's bus terminal until after 9:30 p.m.)

B: The problem is, we need to invent/refine that "next big automobile energy source" very soon, or we're going to be in big trouble since we decided against investing in any sort of alternative.

[Traveler87]

Greyhound?!?! What a joke!

[EarthBound?]

Originally Posted by Traveler87

Greyhound?!?! What a joke!

And NASTY, TOO!!!!

The last time I was on one of those rolling dog pounds, it smelled terrible and the driver was a arrogant jerk. Most of the stations are a mess and the employees have no idea what's going on most of the time.