Kasich Urges Spending Shift from Rail to Ohio Roads

[OntarioVanMan]

Heck with the trucks..get them steel wheels rolling....

I'd like to see his campaign contribution list..prolly the ATA is top of the list..

William B. Cassidy | Jul 21, 2010 9:20PM GMT
The Journal of Commerce Online - News Story

Gubernatorial candidate says funds should go to highways, not high-speed trains

Federal stimulus funds slated for high-speed rail in Ohio should be spent on highways instead, Republican candidate for governor John Kasich said.

Kasich said the $400 million provided to the state for a Cincinnati-to-Cleveland rail corridor should be reallocated to road improvements, the Toledo Blade reported.

Kasich, a former congressman, spoke with trucking executives and other business owners at the Walbridge headquarters of Nagle Cos., a trucking outfit, on Tuesday.

According to the Toledo Blade, truckers told Kasich of troubles doing business with the state, noting that many Ohio carriers register their trucks in other states.

As a congressman, Kasich helped lead the successful charge to abolish the Interstate Commerce Commission and further the economic deregulation of trucking.

The ICC closed its doors in 1995. Kasich left Congress in 2001.

 

[greg334]

I agree, get the rails fixed we do need them.

It's funny, CSX and other rail operators are working with a lot of trucking companies to haul more freight every day. I think we will return to the rail/regional trucking configuration in the near term.

 

[bobwg]

I am confused you dont want money spent on the highways because the ATA(even though you run those same highways) might be a donor to Kasich? Gee lets check the jerks pushing this Green Energy crap, who are the donors to those jerks

 

[dieseldiva]

This country should and needs rapid rail...IMO..a country of this size still has snail mail rail system....get trucks off the highways and reduce wear and tear....

Gee thanks buddy...umm, how's about YOU FIRST?

 

[bobwg]

OVM have you spent time waiting at a rail crossing waiting for a train to finish going by? do you know how many trucks are on the road(millions) ? Are you ready to wait longer at rail crossings? they would have to have more trains and longer trains to get trucks off the road . Since you want to get trucks off the road you should be a leader and be the first to park your truck/van. Trucks have just as much right to be on the highway as your van

 

[bobwg]

Rapid rail is for passengers not for truck trailers show me where in the world a country is using rapid rail for frieght trains? Yes you can have your rapid passenger rail as long as those people who want to ride it pay the actual cost of the ride and not be supported by tax dollars. The public transit in St Louis raised the fare on bus /train riders 25 cents and boy the cry baby riders came out of the wood work even though what riders are paying is only about 30 percent of the actual cost while the taxpayers cover the other 70 percent

 

[bobwg]

wait rapid freight rail no need for you van anymore

 

[dieseldiva]

I am NOT a truck....PAL...you first...

That's my point.....

 

[layoutshooter]

How many of those European rail lines run at a profit and how many run on taxpayer subsidies? How many rail lines here run at a profit? How many at a loss? Only rail that can run WITHOUT subsidies should be allowed. NO MORE SOCIALISM!! Pay as you go or no go. Peter can no longer pay Paul, Peter is broke.

 

[greg334]

The european rail system is a compeletely different animal and there is no reason that we can consider a comparison. They were originally built by the monarchies, which meant they were subsidized right from the start. Today the system works there, here it is different because the government is involved. When the rails were working without government intervention, they not just turned a profit but spurred on other forms of transportation - trucking.

 

[layoutshooter]

100% correct. That is why we should put NO, ZERO, NADA tax dollars into ANY kind of rail. Let the railroad companies lay their own track, buy their own stock, hire their own people and run the railroads at a PROFIT. Period. It is not the responsibility of the U.S. taxpayers to built rail lines. Just as we should not be running bus lines, passenger rail or buying stadiums.

 

[greg334]

YES I agree BUT I also feel that the roads we drive on should be of one standard, not 148 different standards and the states need to receive road funding that is the same per mile for the entire country and only adjusted based on actual costs, not union wage formulas.

 

[layoutshooter]

YES I agree BUT I also feel that the roads we drive on should be of one standard, not 148 different standards and the states need to receive road funding that is the same per mile for the entire country and only adjusted based on actual costs, not union wage formulas.

The U.S. Federal government should take over 100% of the Interstate Defense Highway System. No more need to be built. It is not the responsibility to relieve urban congestion. They should maintain the system, 100%, including snow and ice removal. The States would only police them. The States would handle the rest of the roads within their borders with State funds. The Interstates would be maintained at milspec standards. Paid for with federal funds, no state funds.

 

[greg334]

Layout, that's scary.

I would rather have the feds fund the system through the national fuel taxes but stay out of it.

Is there a real need for the National Defense Highway?

 

[layoutshooter]

Layout, that's scary.

I would rather have the feds fund the system through the national fuel taxes but stay out of it.

Is there a real need for the National Defense Highway?

That is what the interstate system is. That is how the original law was passed. It was called the Interstate Defense Highway system. I thought you knew that.

Our Documents - National Interstate and Defense Highways Act (1956)

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956: Creating the Interstate System

 

[greg334]

I know what it was but is it really needed right now?

Deployment of troops doesn't seem to happen by truck as it did 60 years ago. When we were mobilzing a nation in 1942, I can see the lack of a highway system being one of the problems but then again we had rail that actually worked.

But now, with airports and rather huge planes, it may be an outmoded idea.

We haven't had the threat of invasion outside Mexico for a while so I don't see the need for the National Defense Highway system as much as I see the need for a National Transportation System.

If we went to war with Mexico, I think the lack of highways won't hinder us as much as it will the Mexican forces.

 

[layoutshooter]

Rail is far easier to knock out than roads. We don't anywhere near enough heavy lift aircraft to move large numbers of tanks etc. It was not meant for troop movement as much as it was for moving lots of really big heavy "stuff". Yes we need it, assuming you want a true defense department. If you want the wimp thing we have now, nope.