gildone

^IMHO, Strickland has been improving on this, but still isn't hitting it hard enough.

Not in the context the context that the Rocky Mountain Institute talks about energy efficiency: there is considerable room to save a lot of energy with no change in lifestyle. This is the same context I am using. For example: through my job I get around to many industrial businesses. I see a lot of energy waste. I've seen many instances where businesses could have the same output with less energy and at a net cost savings. Amory Lovins of RMI likes to say: It's cheaper to save energy than to buy it.

It appears you mistakenly assume that the economy can only grow if we use more energy. According to the Rocky Mountain Institute: "American oil savings were a gusher in 1977–85, but slowed to a trickle in the mid-1980s when we closed the main valve—light-vehicle efficiency. During 1975–2003, U.S. primary energy consumption per dollar of real GDP fell by 43% 220—in effect, creating the nation's biggest energy "source," now providing two-fifths of U.S. energy services, and equivalent to 1.9 times 2003 U.S. oil consumption, 5.1 times oil production, 3.4 times net oil imports, and 13.9 times Persian Gulf net imports. Per-capita U.S. primary energy use rose 0.6% while per-capita GDP grew 78%." This also shows that increased fuel efficiency can and in fact did reduce oil use at one time. Anyway, The fact is we still waste a huge amount of energy, and the biggest, cheapest, and quickest to deploy source of energy at our disposal is still efficiency. Eighth and State: It appears that it may have begun already. Only time will tell: U.S. Car Ownership Declines for the First Time Ever http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/ariel-schwartz/sustainability/us-car-ownership-declines-first-time-ever Is Digital Revolution Driving Decline in U.S. Car Culture? http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=144155 And from the mid 1980's until recently, Americans switched from cars, which have more stringent CAFE standards to light trucks and SUV's which received less attention as far as fuel efficiency goes. There was a period earlier in this decade when the average fuel efficiency of cars Americans were sending to the scrap yards was higher than what Americans were buying. Yes, Americans were driving more, but we also stopped making fuel efficiency a priority back in the mid 1980s.

Quote from Norfolk Southern Chairman Wick Moorman on passenger rail in America: “real Americans ride passenger trains for valid reasons.” He acknowledged the growing drumbeat for more and faster passenger trains, but cautioned that European-style high-speed trains will only be seen in the US “in very isolated circumstances.[...] But I do think we’ll see more of the conventional, 79, maybe 90-mph passenger trains, and that, for a lot of the service we need, will be a good thing and be adequate and sufficient.” --4/28/10, Address to the National Association of Railroad Passengers Council of Representatives

We checked availability CLE-WAS on the Capitol Limited for June 8, 9, and 10 (That's Tues, Wed, Thurs next week). They are sold out. So I suppose no one really does want to ride trains with such low average speed (44.5 mph) and take longer than driving... :wink:

I disagree. If you're going to keep blathering about doubts and concerns you need to say on what facts those doubts and concerns are based. He and most politicians know the media just doesn't do much digging or go into much depth with questions anymore. All he's trying to do is conduct a PR campaign, not discuss the project on any sort of rational basis.

In the article in The Lantern that was posted above: "Harris doesn’t believe Amtrak’s finding that there will be 478,000 annual riders, said Harris’ spokeswoman Maggie Ostrowski. He also thinks the projected $17 million in annual subsidies Ohio is expected to pay is unrealistically low, Ostrowski said Monday in an e-mail." What is Senator Harris' proof that ridership and $17 million is so underestimated? I'm a little sick and tired of his offhanded, unsubstantiated comments. Too bad reporters have become too lazy to ask him what his proof is.

Great comment, Ken. Too many so-called fiscal conservatives are just plain blind.

You could walk :wink: As Stephen Wright said: "Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time."

Would be nice, but Ohio's constitution prohibits the use of state gas taxes-- which pays for our public highways--on anything but public highways. Federal law prohibits states from flexing federal gas tax money on intercity rail. At least one attempt has been made to change this, but Democratic Senator Max Baucus of Montana blocked it, although he generally supports Amtrak. What we spend on intercity rail in Ohio (i.e. Ohio Hub plan) will be returned more than two times over in economic development and job creation.

jjakucyk, what year is your map? I see that the town of Willard, Ohio is referred to as Chicago Junction-- it's original name.

^A visitor from Britain told me once in the Cleveland station (when the Pennsylvanian was still running) that he couldn't believe that a city the size of Cleveland only had 6 trains a day. Another time in the Toledo station.. waiting for the Capitol Limited (when it had Pennsylvania through-cars) a person from India told me he thought our rail service was "pathetic."

Akron can be brought in via commuter rail. Also by extending a few CLE-CHI, CLE-DET, and CLE-BUF corridors to Akron/Canton once the Ohio Hub plan reaches the envisioned number of frequencies (8-10 round trips per day each). Akron can also be connected via a bus connection to Ravenna or by "through-cars" (perhaps the self-propelled ones built by US Railcar) on the CLE-PGH route.

It takes time to come back from the bottom. It takes many, many years of incremental improvements. The fact that downtown is improving shows that they have begun the long journey back. Youngstown has also acknowledged that it has to shrink too and is developing plans for doing so. Add to that the Grey to Green festival held last year (and hopefully again this year), their strong support for the PGH-CLE rail corridor and it shows the city is beginning to understand the direction in which it needs to go. I read the letter and some of the comments. It's actually rather pathetic that so many supposed adults don't understand that recovery takes time. Instant gratification has permeated American society to the point of detrimental effect, I think.

Another wake-up call for the world’s biggest oil junkie America Still Doesn't Get It by Chris Nelder OK, America, it’s time to get real about energy. The explosion and destruction of the Horizon deepwater rig and the subsequent oil spill disaster are only the latest in a series of wake-up calls you’ve received. Are you listening now? Your first warning came in 1956, with the publication of M. King Hubbert’s model of US oil production, which correctly predicted its peak in 1970. When Hubbert updated his model on camera in 1976, he also nailed the peak of worldwide conventional oil production in 2005. Since then, production has remained flat at roughly 74 million barrels per day (mbpd), despite prices gyrating wildly from $40 to $147 to $33 and back to $86 today. High prices did not deliver more oil to market. Very simply, the cheap and easy oil is gone. What’s left is smaller, harder to find, of lesser quality, and in much more challenging places–under a mile of water and another five miles of rock, for example. It’s expensive, risky, and yes, dangerous. American domestic oil production peaked in October, 1970 at just over 10 mbpd. It has been in a steadily declining trend ever since, and now stands at 5.5 mpbd. Over 30 percent of domestic production is from offshore drilling, of which about three-quarters comes from the Gulf of Mexico. Deepwater oil production has only become possible in recent years with the development of cutting-edge technology. We do it not because it’s without risk, but because we need the oil–badly. Only offshore is it still possible to find a field in North America that can deliver over 100,000 bpd. Just two of the Gulf fields, Thunder Horse and Atlantis, produce a combined 350,000 bpd... Full article at: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52738

^yes. I can blame them too. That means they have no desire to look ahead and consider what will benefit the state in the long run.

Below is the response I received to my e-mail letter regarding the 3C corridor (posted in this thread last Sunday). Seems he's always raising new concerns without any information of his own to back up what he's saying. This has really gotten tiresome.... March 31, 2010 Dear Mr. ------ Thank you for your correspondence regarding your support for the Ohio Department of Transportation’s recently announced passenger rail plan. The 3C “Quick Start” Passenger Rail Corridor is an initiative aiming to implement conventional speed passenger rail connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati by 2012 via existing freight rail lines. Ohio has been granted $400 million from the federal government to dedicate to passenger rail. Unfortunately, the grant fails to cover the estimated $564 million in start-up costs (rail infrastructure upgrades, station construction, and equipment) included in the Ohio Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) application to the federal government. ODOT estimates that Ohio will also need to provide an additional $17 million per year to compliment annual revenue of the 3C “Quick Start” service. The funding sources for both deficits are still unknown. I am also concerned about the lack of data regarding potential ridership for the 3-C “Quick Start” plan, as well as the proponent’s claim that the plan will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. You can view ODOT’s full application to the federal government online at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/3CisME/Pages/3CDocs.aspx#app. The unclear nature of many key components of this program, specifically regarding financial resources, causes me great concern. Again, thank you for contacting me and sharing your views on this issue. Please do not hesitate to do so in the future should you have any further questions or concerns. Sincerely, Bill Harris Senate President Ohio Senate

My letter to Larkin. [email protected] Mr. Larkin, It was very disappointing to see your inaccurate and poorly researched piece on the 3C Corridor project today. What you and other journalists keep failing to do is look at what about a dozen other states are doing with passenger rail. Every single one of them is pursuing a building block approach to providing passenger rail service. Ohio is merely following a highly successful model that has already proven itself a dozen times over. The Plain Dealer keeps ignoring this important part of the story. Even the example you provide-- California-- has been successfully pursuing the same building block approach. They have been funding what you snidely refer to as "snail rail" for years-- services which have been highly successful. I don't understand why the Plain Dealer (and other newspapers in Ohio) either fail to or refuse to look at what's going on in other states with respect to passenger rail development. Are you so biased against the 3C yourselves that you just don't want to look beyond the opposition's talking points? The approach you have taken with your latest piece is doing a grave dis-service to the issue by failing to tell Ohioans the whole story. For the sake of the Plain Dealer's journalistic integrity, it's time for the paper to start questioning the motives of opponents of the 3C instead of constantly bashing the advocates. Let's start with the Ohio Republican Party. You are apparently unaware that the Ohio Hub plan, which the 3C start-up is part of, was conceived under a Republican administration. And that if it hadn't been for the planning done under that Republican administration, Governor Strickland would not have been able to apply for the stimulus money for the project. Now the Republicans are suddenly against it even though the 3C and all of the Ohio Hub corridors were always assumed to start out with a few frequencies at 79 mph, then increase in speed and frequency from there. Since the initial average speed of the 3C is right in the middle of what other states started out with, the Ohio GOP's constant harping on that is nothing more than a distraction. If anyone is being disingenuous, it's not Governor Strickland. Could it be that the Ohio GOP just doesn't want this project, which they created, to succeed on a Democrat's watch? How about the Ohio Contractor's Association (OCA)? These are the folks who make their money building roads, but did you know that the OCA was for it before they were against it? See attached letter. In 2005, they sent a letter to Senator Ray Miller in support of the Ohio Hub. In that letter they said: "Ohio is in need of rail utilization capabilities comparable to its highway transportation system". See attached. Don't take my word for it. The letter is available to anyone as it is a public record. Why have they changed their stance now that this project is close to becoming a reality? I strongly suggest that you bring some honesty to your coverage of this issue by traveling to a couple of red states that fund rail corridors like Missouri, North Carolina, or Oklahoma. Ride their 40-some mph average speed trains (recent infrastructure improvements in North Carolina have raised the average speed from the 40s to about 50mph). You could talk to passengers, GOP politicians in those states, business leaders, local government officials and chambers of commerce in the cities where the trains stop. You'd be surprised to find out how much of an economic benefit 79 mph trains are. Now specifically regarding one of the points in your piece. You wrongly claim the following language is unambiguous: "Any operating speeds for passenger rail service in excess of 90 mph will require a separated and sealed corridor for the passenger services constructed at least 30 feet offset from existing freight train tracks unless otherwise mutually agreed between the parties." In no way does this state that110 mph service is not going to be allowed by the freight railroads. It only means that to get to those speed additional requirements and revised agreements are needed. Yet, you twisted this around to make it look like officials in the Strickland administration are lying. Had you actually taken the time to talk to the entity that will soon be preparing the FRA-required study for 110 mph service -- the Ohio Rail Development Commission-- you would have discovered just how wrong your assertion is. That study is to commence this summer. You would also find out that ORDC already has a rough idea of the cost: As I understand it, it's an additional $800 million over and above the $400 million for the start-up service. That's $1.2 billion total for the start-up and upgrades to 110 mph. That's Less than the cost of reconfiguring the I-71/I-70 central interchange in Columbus (which ODOT is preparing to do). If anyone is being dishonest, it's you. I expect better journalism out of the former editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Gas is approaching $3 a gallon again and it will likely go higher in the coming years. What are you and other opponents going to tell Ohioans when gas hits $4 or $5 dollars a gallon or worse (which increasingly likely in the coming years) and you all prevented the state from providing an alternative? Apologies for the at-times sharp tone of this message, but the low-quality journalism that has been occurring on the 3C project has become frustrating to me. Me and my family need options to the gas pump and forking over more and more of our hard earned money to the oil companies and countries that don't like us. I would use the 3C several times a year for both business and pleasure. I just want Ohio to follow the same proven and successful model with passenger rail that other states have used. Best Regards,

Here's the link to the PD story: http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/03/brent_larkin_ohio_administrati.html Larkin is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I think the GOP opponents of this project are getting desperate. They're throwing everything against the wall on this hoping something will stick

Urban infill development outpacing suburban sprawl: 'Smart Growth' Taking Hold in U.S. Cities, Study Says By GABRIEL NELSON of Greenwire http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/24/24greenwire-smart-growth-taking-hold-in-us-cities-study-sa-30109.html Redevelopment of urban centers has continued to outpace construction in the outskirts of suburbia, according to a recent U.S. EPA study, suggesting a "fundamental shift" has begun in the real estate market as the Obama administration pushes denser development through its "livability" initiative. Though the nation's urban centers emptied for decades as suburbs sprawled outward, developers in many large cities are increasingly looking inward for building opportunities, according to the study (pdf), titled "Residential Construction Trends in America's Metropolitan Regions." In 26 of the nation's 50 largest metropolitan areas, the share of residential construction taking place in central cities more than doubled since 2000.

Urbansurfin: Thanks for the report on the debate. Just the little bit you were able to convey here gives me confidence that Seney did a good job putting the opponents in their places. 327 wrote: Prior to approximately Labor Day 1995 Amtrak operated the Toledo-Detroit-Pontiac. It was killed after Mercer Consulting suggested Amtrak cut that train, the Broadway Limited, the Pioneer, the Desert Wind, reduce service on some others that I forget and get rid of their Heritage fleet.

Apparently, the Ohio GOP doesn't want Ohioans to have any sort of freedom from the gas pump.

With Jim Seney on the pro-rail side, I have confidence in this debate. He knows how to talk to Republicans on this issue. I respect Gene Krebs too for his work for Greater Ohio. When he was in the legislature, however, he opposed rail. I know he has come around, so between him and Seney, there is a solid pro-rail side to the team. Funny about Casey/Jones. What's really sad about this whole debate we have to go through is that this project has gone through the same level of analysis and study that even a highway project has to go through. Actually, it has gone through MORE analysis when you include things like the economic impact study. Yet, it has had to endure far more scrutiny.

^ "Cincinnati Fourth Main Rail and Cincinnati Union Terminal" Good news!