Ohio will learn soon whether fast-train plan gets stimulus mone...

Full story: Columbus Dispatch

Ohio has plenty of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package left to spend in 2010, but it's the big prize that hangs in the balance: the prospects of landing funds for a marquee train project.
Comments
41 - 50 of 50 Comments Last updated Aug 24, 2013
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Bob

Roswell, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Dec 29, 2009
 
svc wrote:
<quoted text>
I want this train. I want a public option for healthcare. Not necessarily full-on nationalized care but definitely a bare bones option if I decide to start my own business and can't afford insurance for a few years.
I'm not alone. In case you missed it, discount commuter airlines aren't surviving. That's because it's so expensive to land and take off which is really all you do on commuter hops. high speed rail is the answer. We need 79 mph rail before we get 110 mph service and from there we can start developing 200 mph trains.
You at least admit to being a mooch. If you open a biz or not, a public option was not set up to be free of charge. Why should I pay for your health insurance ? Yes, you are not alone, thats the problem, to many wanting a free ride.
Allen

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Dec 29, 2009
 
Redistributor wrote:
Has anyone actually studied what the demand for this train would be? I don't have a problem if the demand is there, but highly doubt it is. Why do they insist on spending money on things we don't need or use?
When states ask the federal government for stimulus money for projects like these they are required to submit studies of all kinds relating to demand, cost, environmental impact, ect. That is how they decide who gets the money. If there are enough better projects around the country Ohio's rail project will not get any money.

After you connect all of Ohio's major cities you can then you can run lines connecting to the Chicago network, and you only have to get to Pittsburgh to connect to NYC (I drove to Pittsburgh and then took a rain to NYC a few weeks ago).

And as others have said, you have to start with 79 mph lines before you can upgrade to 200mph lines.
Bob

Roswell, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Dec 29, 2009
 

Judged:

1

skeptical observer wrote:
<quoted text>
GOP tax cuts for the rich forced us to collectively borrow $2 trillion. I look forward to your reposting your outrage about that, which makes an Ohio train trivial. And at least trains serve a purpose.
Every taxpayer got a tax cut, the bottom rate went from 15 to 10. Revenue did not drop after the cuts were fully implemented, it increased, somewhat. However, spending has always increased and we had no fed income taxes prior to 1913. I would be outraged if our problems start and end with one group paying 3% less in income tax but this idea is lame. If Bush kept the income tax the same, do you think Medicare and Social Security would be fully funded now ? The fact is you cannot say that tax decreases caused less revenue. You can say entitlements are breaking us. The ohio train is trivial to the two trillion you mentioned, the tax cuts by Bush are much more trivial than the 50 trillion in unfunded medicare and Social Security.
Bob

Roswell, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Dec 29, 2009
 
Allen wrote:
<quoted text>
When states ask the federal government for stimulus money for projects like these they are required to submit studies of all kinds relating to demand, cost, environmental impact, ect. That is how they decide who gets the money. If there are enough better projects around the country Ohio's rail project will not get any money.
After you connect all of Ohio's major cities you can then you can run lines connecting to the Chicago network, and you only have to get to Pittsburgh to connect to NYC (I drove to Pittsburgh and then took a rain to NYC a few weeks ago).
And as others have said, you have to start with 79 mph lines before you can upgrade to 200mph lines.
You do not have to waste money on tracks for a 79mph train just to tear them up, start with what we need or just put people on the Baltimore & Ohio and don't spend anything.
skeptical observer

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Dec 29, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Every taxpayer got a tax cut, the bottom rate went from 15 to 10. Revenue did not drop after the cuts were fully implemented, it increased, somewhat. However, spending has always increased and we had no fed income taxes prior to 1913. I would be outraged if our problems start and end with one group paying 3% less in income tax but this idea is lame. If Bush kept the income tax the same, do you think Medicare and Social Security would be fully funded now ? The fact is you cannot say that tax decreases caused less revenue. You can say entitlements are breaking us. The ohio train is trivial to the two trillion you mentioned, the tax cuts by Bush are much more trivial than the 50 trillion in unfunded medicare and Social Security.
The cuts overwhelmingly benefited the richest Americans and they cost the Treasury over 2 trillion dollars, according to an analysis done by the respected Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. They were also long-term tax cuts that were totally unnecessary if the goal was to combat a brief downturn. Nobel Economist George Akerlof described the tax cuts as "a form of looting."
skeptical observer

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Dec 29, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Every taxpayer got a tax cut, the bottom rate went from 15 to 10. Revenue did not drop after the cuts were fully implemented, it increased, somewhat. However, spending has always increased and we had no fed income taxes prior to 1913. I would be outraged if our problems start and end with one group paying 3% less in income tax but this idea is lame. If Bush kept the income tax the same, do you think Medicare and Social Security would be fully funded now ? The fact is you cannot say that tax decreases caused less revenue. You can say entitlements are breaking us. The ohio train is trivial to the two trillion you mentioned, the tax cuts by Bush are much more trivial than the 50 trillion in unfunded medicare and Social Security.
You also fail to mention the minor detail that Bush and the Hastert/DeLay led House and GOP controlled Senate pushed through the largest new entitlement since Medicare and didnt fund a single dime of it. Nor did they fund the war. And even discretionary domestic spending increased on the Lying Republican Piggies' watch.
Allen

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Dec 29, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not have to waste money on tracks for a 79mph train just to tear them up, start with what we need or just put people on the Baltimore & Ohio and don't spend anything.
You need new ones so you can make it into a high speed line eventually. The cost of the actual rails is only a small part of the cost of actually constructing the line. The buying up, clearing, and grading the land for the line itself will make up the vast majority of the costs. Once that is done replacing the rails in the future will be a lot easier than starting from scratch.
Dead Parrot

Dublin, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Dec 29, 2009
 
One big question for the future of HSR development is if teh new proposed lines shall follow the form that current freight railroads use based upon the needs of teh 19th Century or will they follow the needs that a new format would need.

Think about teh Interstates. I-70 was never built directly upon Route 40/National Road, nor was I-71 built directly on the footprint of State Route 3 (aka 3C Highway). They follow the same rough route as teh older highways but are not duplicates. There is no reason for a HSR line to go thru Marion as almost all steam era roads did, nor would teh Miami River valley be an insurmountable obstacle to a 21st Century rail line as it did in teh age of steam, we'd get a hell of a bridge over the valley. Also remember the actual design of a High Speed Rail Line is vastly differant to what the lines built in the 19th Century were designed to. The trains are lighter, shorter and faster than existing trains so that would govern gradiants, curvatures, and grade separation in a way that simply updating the existing rail lines could never be done, even if the existing railroads would want to share thier priveatly owned right of ways with a new passenger rail entity.
svc

Dublin, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Dec 30, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You at least admit to being a mooch. If you open a biz or not, a public option was not set up to be free of charge. Why should I pay for your health insurance ? Yes, you are not alone, thats the problem, to many wanting a free ride.
If I start my own business that means I'm paying taxes. If I'm paying taxes they'd be going into the funding for the public option. Hardly a free ride. Especially since it would be temporary. Once my business grows I'd be inclined to find my own insurance because the public option wouldn't be attractive enough to stay on long term. It would be a safety net.

What you're missing is that the cost of health care creates a dependency on health insurance. Most americans can only afford group coverage through their employer. A lot of people balk at the notion of starting their own businesses because they know they can't afford health care if they don't have group coverage. So not having a public option actually stifles our economy.

The way I see it, you could fund a public option with the money currently being paid in subsidies to oil companies and agribusinesses. You could probably save a few billion more by streamlining defense contracts so the executives with General Dynamics don't get million dollar bonus checks paid for with our tax dollars when they fulfill a contract on time. How about penalizing them when they fall short instead?
Tom

Troy, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Aug 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

karon wrote:
200 hundred mile per hour train is 19th century technology? Japan and Europe have many of these. The only high speed train in the United States is the aclea which is located in the northeast. United States is very behind to transportation!
Trains are death traps. In the US they would be ridden by the dregs of society and littered with gangsters wanting to rob and steal. Some of the worst accidents in Europe have involved high speed trains.

You have continually run your mouth about trains on every blog you can post your ignorant nonsense on. When will you ever learn that trains are not a good idea in the US?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

24 Users are viewing the Columbus Forum right now

Search the Columbus Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 25 min dba_freelance_gyno 29,097
Little Boy Blue's Got a Job in Town 1 hr Andrew Dice Clay 7
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 1 hr Go Blue Forever 2,897
Lois Lerner linked to another erased hard drive 1 hr Pope Che Reagan Christ I 66
Are PEDOphiles Born That Way 2 hr STFU Breeders 17
No you agree with Israeli airstrikes into Gaza? 2 hr Go IDF Go 29
Columbus to spread more wastewater sludge on fa... 8 hr They cannot kill a Spook 1
•••
•••
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••