Ohio won't ask feds to reimburse mone...

Ohio won't ask feds to reimburse money for dead 3-C rail plan | The Columbus Dispatch

There are 113 comments on the Columbus Dispatch story from Jun 16, 2011, titled Ohio won't ask feds to reimburse money for dead 3-C rail plan | The Columbus Dispatch. In it, Columbus Dispatch reports that:

Ohio has decided not to press for federal reimbursement of $1.3 million the state spent on a high-speed rail project that has been abandoned.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Columbus Dispatch.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Thinker

United States

#1 Jun 16, 2011
Modern day trains are gimmicks which noboday wants. Glad to see this one stopped in its tracks.
Dave Carter

Columbus, OH

#2 Jun 16, 2011
Hey, they are milking these casinos dry before they even open the doors, why not try to pry 1.3 mill from the prez's pocket come Saturday's golf match. Winning team keeps the 1.3 mill.....

Problem is, I hear Biden is close to a scratch golfer..... Boehner is long off the tee and Kasich is good around the green though.....

I think Weiner from NY should be Boehner's partner before he steps down
Cloris

Columbus, OH

#3 Jun 16, 2011
They're not even going to try to get the money??? What the heck is wrong with this administration? Mind boggling. It's like anything train related causes republicans to become mentally disabled.
I Ronic

Iowa City, IA

#4 Jun 16, 2011
Have Governor Lehman Brothers write them a check. After all, wasn't it his idea to scrap the project? I'm sure some of that federal money would have covered Ohio's investment.
where

Palo Alto, CA

#6 Jun 16, 2011
Thinker wrote:
Modern day trains are gimmicks which noboday wants. Glad to see this one stopped in its tracks.
How are they gimmicks? I know a lot of people who like train service from Columbus. Mass transit does work. Unfortunately, the oil industry makes more money when mass transit isn't available. You are a pawn in the oil industry game.

Since: Dec 08

Kerrville, TX

#7 Jun 16, 2011
After reading the article it seems as though it would have been a losing proposition. Better to gamble and lose 1 million than to be stuck with 10's of millions later on. It looks like this was just preliminary research and the government would only reimburse after actual construction began. Consider yourself lucky it only cost you pocket change.

Since: Mar 11

Columbus, OH

#8 Jun 16, 2011
Thinker wrote:
Modern day trains are gimmicks which noboday wants. Glad to see this one stopped in its tracks.
I want them. I would have used one of the routes atleast once a month. Maybe up to Cleveland and take the amtrak to the northeast. Would have been nice to spend a relaxing weekend taking in scenery.
hmmmm

Louisville, KY

#9 Jun 16, 2011
latte thunder wrote:
<quoted text>
I want them. I would have used one of the routes atleast once a month. Maybe up to Cleveland and take the amtrak to the northeast. Would have been nice to spend a relaxing weekend taking in scenery.
Then take a bus!
blue88

United States

#10 Jun 16, 2011
Engineers made a decision a hundred years ago to go rail transport. Now, let's see, both the coefficient of static friction and dynamic friction of steel wheels on rail are approx one third those of rubber on road. Less friction = less resistance = higher (fuel) efficiency. If electric, the energy can be diversified from multiple sources: coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, whatever. The Middle East crises don't matter much then. Pollution from electric trains is zero; it's consolidated at the power plants where the same economy-of-scale principle applies (easier to treat at a few big sources than 10 million tailpipes).

But this was a quaint idea from archaic engineering principles. We're so much more advanced now.
YeahYeah

Columbus, OH

#11 Jun 16, 2011
$1.3 M for a study? WOW! Apparently if we're simple enough to spend that kind of money then we shouldn't get reimbursed....
Reader

Columbus, OH

#12 Jun 16, 2011
Sure glad ol' Johnnie boy was so quick to save us money on that one, eh?
Andy

Sidney, OH

#13 Jun 16, 2011
hmmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
Then take a bus!
You can't take a bicycle on a Greyhound Bus, unless you want to pay obscene extra amounts. When I lived in Modesto, CA I used to ride my bike to the train station and take Amtrak into San Francisco every weekend.
Did you know on Amtrak you can check three 50lbs bags and two 50lbs carry-ons for no additional cost? When I moved from Boston to Cincinnati I used the train because I could carry all my stuff on it for the price of a ticket. Unfortunately, my brother had to come pick me up in Cleveland because there is no 3-C train and you can't pack 5 suitcases onto a bus (buses a lot smaller, duh). Having him come pick me up was a huge waste of his time.
money4nuttinChic ksarefree

United States

#14 Jun 16, 2011
just like public housing DOES NOT mimmick real home costs ,neither does public transportation mimick real transportation costs, its all burried under programs, funding,authorities,grants,fed eral pork,, THE WHOLE SYSTEM HAS BEEN SKEWED TO ACCOMODATE THE LEAST PRODUCTIVE ,from theEARNINGS OF THE SO CALLED MIDDLE CLASS, who are more a notch above the baseline ,which constantly pushes more and more workers into the bottom rung.. so complain, do nothing, enjoy, because SO CALLED MIDDLE AMERICA IS "ON THE MENU",over $33,000 before taxes..and chances are your not even eligEble for "THE TIME OF DAY".
cbus614

Columbus, OH

#18 Jun 16, 2011
blue88 wrote:
Engineers made a decision a hundred years ago to go rail transport. Now, let's see, both the coefficient of static friction and dynamic friction of steel wheels on rail are approx one third those of rubber on road. Less friction = less resistance = higher (fuel) efficiency. If electric, the energy can be diversified from multiple sources: coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, whatever. The Middle East crises don't matter much then. Pollution from electric trains is zero; it's consolidated at the power plants where the same economy-of-scale principle applies (easier to treat at a few big sources than 10 million tailpipes).
But this was a quaint idea from archaic engineering principles. We're so much more advanced now.
Glad you get it. We could get off a big chunk of foreign oil if we went to more, high-speed rail. Plus, you could spend a lot less time behind the wheel and more time at home or working.
My turn

New York, NY

#19 Jun 16, 2011
Cloris wrote:
They're not even going to try to get the money??? What the heck is wrong with this administration? Mind boggling. It's like anything train related causes republicans to become mentally disabled.
Go back and read the story you tard. It is unlikely the Feds will pay it. That money should have never been spent by Ted Stricknine in the first place. It's like anything related to this 3C rail farce causes Democrats to foam at the mouth.
My turn again

New York, NY

#20 Jun 16, 2011
where wrote:
<quoted text>
How are they gimmicks? I know a lot of people who like train service from Columbus. Mass transit does work. Unfortunately, the oil industry makes more money when mass transit isn't available. You are a pawn in the oil industry game.
"I know a lot of people who like train service from Columbus." How could that be? There hasn't been passenger rail here since 1971.
Hope

Marion, OH

#21 Jun 16, 2011
When gas hits $5.50 a gallon and up, high speed rail will be appealing. This was an investment for the State of Ohio's future. Plus the jobs that would have been created. Infrastructure is one of the most important aspects of government. Building a rail system in the future will just get more expensive, and future generations will wonder why we didn't complete the project.
RECALL kaSICK

Columbus, OH

#22 Jun 16, 2011
RECALL ka-SICK
Be Real

Columbus, OH

#26 Jun 16, 2011
Let's all be perfectly clear on the fact that the state is not eligible for reimbursement of the funds. To argue that the state should beg for money it is not legally entitled to is a fruitless argument. You're just looking for excuses to lay blame. Read the ARRA bill. Read the stipulations the FRA put forth to be eligible to be reimbursed by the Feds for the $400 million. Ohio is not eligible for reimbursment. Period.
The OH Life

Columbus, OH

#27 Jun 16, 2011
Reader wrote:
Sure glad ol' Johnnie boy was so quick to save us money on that one, eh?
If Teddy wasn't so quick to pull the trigger on this one, thought it through instead of resorting his "spend spend spend and figure a way to pay later" strategy, we wouldn't be out the $1.3m.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Recount Collapses 17 min Snap Crackle and Pop 25
Abe To Visit Pearl Harbor After Christmas 26 min 1 and 1 and 1 is 3 1
Trump the Crook/Liar 56 min d pants 217
Religion in our schools..... 57 min every troll here ... 50
Trump TOUR 3 hr Pale Rider 11
News Crime Stoppers | 'Halloween' mask part of late ... 7 hr They cannot kill ... 2
Can the Democrat Party Heal itself? Or... 8 hr Seriouslady 16
God Help Us. Drumpf Is Clueless, And Impeachab... 21 hr Reality Speaks 84

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages