Another question: It appears that there is a pretty tight tolerance for keeping the vehicle aligned with the pillars. It seems like any shifting or settling of a pillar could cause it to come out of alignment. Exactly how much can a pillar be out of alignment with out creating any problems? (I’m asking for specific numbers here too).

http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio%20Hub/Website/ordc/index.html

And while we’re at it, what happens if a train breaks down? Is the entire line shut down because no trains can pass the disabled vehicle? What about passengers stranded high above the ground in one of these things? How do rescue and repair crews get to this train if it’s high above gound?

What about energy efficiency? How would this technology compare with other forms of transportation?

A final point. Even though we’d have a series of towers rather than a conventional right of way, there will still be property acquisition costs, especially in urban areas. Land will have to be acquired for the supports and that might mean removing bildings. Terminals will require still more land and all of this will probably be subject to a rigorous environmental review.

Again, I think it’s smarter to go with proven, reliable technology.

Maglev, monorail, 500 mph underground high speed tubes and God-knows-what-else have dazzled and then fizzled. In my view, this looks like more of the same.

This proposal looks a lot like maglev and if it does and has many of the same advantages we might ask why aren’t more maglev lines being built? One reason is that steel-wheel high speed rail has been refined to the point where maglev offers little advantage. I suspect the same would apply to the tubular train idea.

There are a lot of technical questions concerning this proposal, but I’ll leave that to others. I can see a couple of problems at first glance, though.

One is the fact that this technology is incompatible with existing rail systems. In other words, passengers will be forced to transfer to continue their journey, in many cases, and that loses ridership. One of the advantages of the TGV is that it might run on high speed tracks, but can operate over a conventional rail line to an off-line city.

Another is environmental. What about the esthetics of supports which look like a row of upside down fly swatters marching off to the horizon? NIMBY’s and Enviros might not be too keen on that.

I think that as we move into a new era of high energy costs, we are going to be faced with having to find ways to move the masses at the lowest cost. Upgrading or expanding existing or little used rail lines will likely be the best bet. Likewise, we will have to focus on proven, off-the-shelf technology to accomplish this.

I’m not even talking high speed rail here. I’m talking about keeping the country moving under rapidly changing conditions. This proposal won’t do that, but what is going on with state rail programs around the country is a start.

Given Ohio’s budget situation, I’ll take the cheaper one, which is based on a proven technology that is currently being utilized successfully in many states.

I’m not denigrating traditional rail, as you imply I am. I’m just stating the facts in the Ohio Hub Plan, nothing more, nothing less.

The question arises from your comment as to why the rest of the world has high-speed rails but we don’t, even after all these decades. One answer is cost. Another is the power of the auto industry and, up until now, affordable fuel. Those days are changing rapidly, and we’ve appeared on the scene. For a relatively small price compared to the costs already sunk into scads of transportation plans, Ohio, or maybe another state for that matter — and we’re not picky about what state we’re developed in — would know what our technology is all about; whether it does what we say it can do. You are correct, I can’t take you in a Tubular Rail car today, but that’s the point of our campaign. As I told you when I first presented the technology to you in July, if I could tap Richard Branson or Paul Allen, I would, and I’d sidetrack government officials who, for better or worse, are risk averse even though they talk a good game about innovation and the like.

I also mentioned to you as I left your office that the very presence of the world “rail” in your agencies name implies a bias toward “railroads,” which is exactly what we don’t need but what costs so much that we have little real passenger rail options available to us.

I apologize for stating facts directly out of the Ohio Hub Plan, but they are what they are. And while the technology in other countries may be more advanced, on future generations, we can’t say the same for Ohio. So while the legs of the Ohio Hub Plan may be substantial, given the time, effort and cost of developing it, those legs haven’t produced a statewide rail system and I don’t forsee those legs moving us down the track to any great degree in the foreseeable future. Thanks for commenting Stu. I know you are a big fan of rails. I’m still waiting for a time to present to the ORDC board.

It’s hard to win friends and influence people if we’re not given a chance to show what we can do. Banging on the big door of the status quo is all we’re doing now. No offense intended. We play well with all modes of transportation. That’s one of our strengths.

At Governor Strickland’s request, the ORDC is also advancing start-up, conventional speed Amtrak service in the 3-C (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati) Corridor to re-introduce passenger rail service to most of Central Ohio. Governor Strickland has committed to obtaining funding for the state’s share of such service.

The ORDC believes that taking incremental steps toward more and better is the best strategy the state can take. Each step sets the table for the next improvement in both speed and service. It is a tried and tested approach in states like California, Illinois, Maine, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin and other states.

We are also on the cusp of realizing the first-ever federal passenger rail funding program in Senate Bill 294. This funding can greatly elevate and accelrate passenger rail development in Ohio and the nation.

You say your strategy is not to “denigrate” other forms of rail, and yet that’s exactly what you wind up doing. That’s hardly a way to win friends.

You’re asking the State of Ohio to completely shift gears in mid-stream for an untested concept that has no protortype in operation.

The service envisioned under the Ohio Hub can use state-of-the-art rail technology to achieve high-performance speeds of 110 mph. True high-speed rail, which is found virtually everywhere else in the world is now pushing speeds in the mid 200′s to over 300 mph and is on it’s third generation of that technology.

Elevated mag-lev is moving along in fits and starts at best and the costs are keeping it from advancing.

This is not to say tubular rail is a bad concept, but at this point, it doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on other than the word of the man who developed it.

The blogosphere, of which Jill is a major player despite her arguments to the contrary, will find and give lift to a story that main-stream reporters may not pick up on, which seems amazing given they have no problem writing about all things great and small, which is the purpose of a newspaper. We’re news. We hope the newspapers recognize that fact soon.

I’m hoping to meet with ODOT officials soon, if they would just give me 30 minutes of their time. I’ll even bring the PB&J sandwiches.