Train wreck

Gov. Strickland has been pressing for federal funds to construct the Ohio Hub project initially connecting Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, and Cleveland with passenger rail. In so doing, he has encountered criticism from many who object to this particular approach, whom he calls "cheerleaders for failure" (Link from Dayton Daily News).

I am passionately in favor of light rail in large cities, and of high-speed intercity rail service. They can be sensible, long-term solutions to providing transportation that will reduce fuel consumption and air pollution; and provide a more economical and convenient alternative to commuter air.

However, any such proposal has to be attractive enough to dissuade someone from driving the route. Why, for example, should anyone forego the convenience of a car for a train, when one can drive from Cincinnati to Cleveland on I-71 in four hours; in favor of a train that takes six or more?

If we're going to build this thing, let's do it right and lay the track to support a European-style bullet train that can run up to 180 miles per hour. If you build that, people will come.

Here's an even better idea -- let's change the state funding mix for transportation. From now on, the state will build the rail as I described, and will maintain existing interstates, and state and federal routes; but will stop subsidizing new construction. If a county wants new construction (even for interstates), it will be at the county's expense. The state could provide a small equalization fund to make this requirement less burdensome for counties with small populations, similar to what the feds do for less densely populated states. With the possible exception of a few bypasses, such as U.S. 33 around Nelsonville, we've paved enough land for roads. Over time, this idea will make other options more attractive than driving.

"Cheerleader for failure?" Au contraire, I just want to make sure it succeeds -- on the long run!