gildone

My mistake. I'll remove it. Sorry! :-)

Let's try this one more time... 1. It has been the state of Ohio's preference for the 3-C to be the first step toward the Ohio Hub plan. Whatever the political reasons may have been that Ohio was given the money are IRRELEVANT because this is how the state of Ohio wanted to start building the Ohio Hub-- with the 3-C first. 2. The 79mph top speed is for the FIRST step of the 3-C corridor. Speeds will be increased going forward from this step. Why? See #3 3. The best way to get to true high speed rail is INCREMENTALLY. You start with conventional speeds. As the dozen or so other states that are doing this already know, THIS IS WHAT WORKS. IT'S A PROVEN APPROACH. (Aside: how many times does this have to be said for it to sink in with some of you people?). The incremental approach is the most cost effective, and it's how high speed rail has been done everywhere else in the world. 4. In addition, the incremental approach allows you to build a ridership base and a constituency for the considerably LARGER investment required for true HSR. Why is this important? Since the 1970s Ohio has had FOUR HSR proposals go down in flames because everyone always got spooked by the higher up-front cost it requires. Trying to go from zero to true HSR in one step has FAILED in Ohio FOUR times. This is the FAILED approach. Get it? Your assertion that this is a half-baked plan has no basis in reality. You have a proven failed approach and you have a proven successful approach. The successful approach is the incremental approach. Call me crazy, but I'll take the proven successful way over the failed way every time.

The Ohio Hub is not a cohesive plan? The 3-C is just the first step, and we're not doing anything any differently than any of the other states that have done this haven't already done (how many times to I have to say this??). The only way to get this stuff done is incrementally, one corridor at a time. Ohio is starting with the spine of the Ohio Hub system and expanding from there. There are plans to connect Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago, Pittsburgh-Columbus-Lima-Ft. Wayne-Chicago, and Cincinnati-Chicago, as well as Buffalo-Toronto. The Ohio Hub is designed to dovetail with the Midwest Regional Rail System (Chicago Hub) an the Empire Corridor (New York) and Keystone Corridor (Pennsylvania). While the 3-C gets going, the required PEIS studies will be completed for some of the other key parts of the proposed system. Part of the reason we are starting with the 3-C is because it's intra-state, therefore Ohio has the most control over it-- there are no hurdles that would come with working with other states. It will also ultimately be one of the most heavily used corridors in the Ohio Hub system. Getting trains into Chicago requires working with two other states--including Indiana which, until the stimulus came along, really didn't give a damn about passenger rail. Plus there has been the problem of train congestion between Porter, Indiana and Chicago. No more trains can realistically be added until that problem is dealt with. It's a serious problem that requires a lot of money to fix. Fortunately, stimulus money was given to that project, but there were no guarantees for that project or any of the ones that states sought money for, for that matter. Anyway, I suppose it's ok for us to agree to disagree that Ohio doesn't have a cohesive plan.

You're making an assumption-- and a faulty one at that. It's very tough to "sell" passenger rail anywhere. Legislatures have to be convinced to appropriate the money. They are inevitably and heavily skeptical, and in their minds the bar is higher for passenger rail than other modes. There are a lot of myths about passenger trains that have to be overcome, and then there are the opponents who who like to twist facts and perpetuate those myths. And because in American society it's easier to tear something apart than build support, you really have to make sure you're on solid ground when you take up an issue like passenger rail. I know the steps ORDC took in order to build support for the 3-C/Ohio Hub. There was a lot of care taken with ridership studies, the economic impact analysis, and all the other information they have gathered in order to build support. It has been no different in any of the other states. So, long story short, those people would be very good contacts because they've already dealt with everything we are dealing with in Ohio. They've dealt with the exact same skepticism you have and more-- and their projects have succeeded. It's pretty easy to sit at your computer and armchair quarterback this stuff, but it's the people who played the game who know best what success is and how it was achieved.

ORDC/ODOT understand fully that the equipment has to be in very good condition. That's why they are considering leaving Amtrak out of equipment acquisition and maintenance altogether. This is what California has done. All Amtrak does there is crew the trains and provide reservations and booking. Amtrak gave the state of Ohio a baloney figure for equipment: $175 million. Wisconsin is buying 4 or 5 Talgo trainsets for $25 million per set. Ohio could lease rebuilt equipment for the 3-C for a lot less than $175 million too. This was discussed in these threads some months back, I believe. ORDC is, as I understand it, even evaluating the possibility of contracting with Norfolk Southern and other entities operate the trains.

Ok. I understand what you're saying. I would suggest you contact Patrick Simmons at NCDOT and Patricia Quinn with the New England Passenger Rail Authority and ask them how they are defining success. Frank Busalacchi with Wisconsin DOT (Hiawatha Corridor) would be another suggestion. Amtrak got the deal because Amtrak took away the private railroads' obligation to run passenger trains. They wanted out and for good reason. The federal government was doing everything it could to pour money into highways and aviation while the private railroads were expected to absorb all of the costs for passenger trains that were being subsidized for those other modes. Then, in 1967 ('68?), the US Postal Service, under a Postmaster General who had been hired from the airline industry, took all of the remaining US mail off of the passenger trains and put it on the airlines. This led to a spike in passenger train losses that the private railroads could no longer absorb anymore. Amtrak's "avoidable cost" deal is a special case that was a result of negotiation with the freights when Amtrak took over passenger operations. By law, they are also supposed to give Amtrak priority, but Amtrak has rarely pushed this through legal means. The last I know of is with the Southern Pacific back in the 70s or 80s over their dispatching of the Sunset Limited. The freights will never agree to allowing other operators the same avoidable cost deal, and that is only fair. If you're going to use private property, you have to expect to pay a fair market rate for it. The other side of the coin is that if the freights earned a fair profit for hosting passenger trains, the operator would be treated equally with any other customer. Via Rail in Canada pays a market rate, not avoidable costs, and CN dispatches their trains very well.

What do you mean "if true"? All you have to do is look up Amtrak's schedules of these trains and calculate the average speeds. You can read a transcript of Patrick Simmons' testimony in a hearing on the 3-C back in April of '09. You can contact people like Patricia Quinn about the Downeaster. Because they don't have to be to have a successful start. That's what NCDOT and the other states have found out. Now they are improving the speeds and ridership is growing even more. Ohio is pursuing a PROVEN model here. Do you think people in these other states didn't have the exact same conversation we're having now? Of course they did. But once the trains started rolling, it didn't matter anymore, because the trains worked. Says Amtrak's enabling legislation. It's federal law the avoidable cost figure is a deal that only Amtrak gets. The freight railroads agreed to this back when the Amtrak was created. The infrastructure-owning railroads are not required to offer that deal to any other operator. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Both NS and CSX support the 3-C/Ohio Hub. They aren't obstructing anything. Perhaps I missed one of the points you made somewhere along the line. Apologies if I did. by the way, those "free" land grants (which benefited primarily western railroads, not the eastern ones) weren't free. In return for them, the railroads had to give the federal government discounted shipping rates. Stephen Goddard discusses this in his book: Getting There: The Epic Struggle Between Road and Rail in the American Century. For many decades those rates applied. There were congressional hearings on this in the 30s, if I recall the book correctly. It was determined that the railroads re-payed the cost of those land grants many times over via the discounted shipping rates.

Their argument is baseless. The Downeaster averages 42 mph, according to KJP. The Carolinian and Piedmont trains in North Carolina started out somewhere in the low to mid 40mph range, now they are around 51 mph. The Heartland Flyer in Oklahoma averages 47 mph. These are all successful trains. This point has to be hammered over and over again to the media. Amtrak gets to use the freights' rights-of-way for "avoidable cost" which more or less means dispatching and whatever inspections/maintenance over and above what the freights would have to otherwise do anwyay if there were no passenger trains on the tracks. Any other operator would have to pay more.

The Jim Seney quote-- which is what he was told by a railroad executive: "You want to build a swimming pool in my back yard, then invite all of your friends". The RR executive's point wasn't that he was opposing the 3-C/Ohio Hub plan, but that there had to be some give and take. Namely, that Ohio can run passenger trains on their tracks, provided the infrastructure is improved enough so that freight operations are helped also and not harmed. I agree with that sentiment. It's private property. What happened with the railroad barons a century or more ago doesn't matter now. CSX and NS are both supportive of the 3-C/Ohio Hub. They are supportive because they have been approached by the state as partners to work with in a manner that will benefit both parties rather than the state saying this is what we're going to do, period. Such an approach would fly like a lead balloon.

You folks in Cincinnati are proposing some very good ideas. If you want them to happen, you need to organize, organize, organize down there.

The line through Ft. Wayne is important. They need to re-submit their application for what will hopefully $4 billion in the transportation bill. The Ft. Wayne line is preferred for Toledo-Chicago and it ties in the proposed PGH-Columbus-Lima-Ft. Wayne-Chicago route in the Ohio Hub plan. However, the improvements in Porter, Indiana are probably a higher priority in the short term. Keep plugging away in Fort Wayne. Ohio has a vested interest in that line. ++++ A perspective from www.thetransportpolitic.com: "a line through Fort Wayne in northern Indiana, proposed for a major upgrade on the way to Cleveland, will not be funded in this first phase. That’s an acceptable decision, since Ohio has pledged money to its service while Indiana has not." I'm not sure what money from Ohio they are talking about.

Ohio is no different from any other state that has done this. In the other states, the corridors take longer than driving and cost more than an equivalent amount of gas. It's not a requirement for success. Those other corridors have been and continue to be successful.

It's not commencing there. It's just a suburban stop so there will be an intermodal connection to the airport. It will commence at Lakefront Station.

It's too bad that ideologues like Husted really oppose this because it's a Strickland/Democrat/Obama led initiative. Pure politics. He's making a "prediction" with out any evidence on which to base it. The partisan division that's choking Congress and our state legislatures is one of the things that's destroying America. Some of these guys don't care about anything except political power and trying to win elections.

Is what speculation? That Ohio has been given stimulus money for the 3-C? No, it's not speculation. It's official.

Cincinnatians can call on the state legislature to add enough funds to bring the trains into CUT. The rest of the state would support that.

To catch a long distance flight somewhere else. It's called intermodal connectivity :wink: Then those slots that are being used to fly people between Cleveland and Cincinnati or Cleveland and Columbus can be used for a longer distance flight that will actually make money for the airlines.

No one in ORDC or the governor's office sold this project as anything but a "start-up" plan at 79 mph-- a FIRST step toward higher speeds. If you have followed the discussions on UO, no one here sold it as anything different either. There has been much discussion in these threads about why the project is starting out at 79 mph. You want real high speed rail right now? Tell us how we are going to come up with $25-$40 million/per mile? True HSR has been done incrementally throughout the world. We're choosing the proven path here: Start with conventional speeds and increase them from there.

Great news about the $400 million. Now, we have to make sure that small handful of GOP ideologues in the Ohio Senate don't succeed in finding a way to derail this thing (no pun intended). Instead of creating a "backlash", the smartest thing for those in Cincinnati to do would be to work through their state legislators to get some state funds to extend the trains to CUT. I don't think anyone else in the state who supports this project would oppose that. Remember also that a couple of the key ideological anti-rail state legislators are in the Cincinnati area. Don't give them an excuse to be obstructionist. Cincinnatians have the primary responsibility to work on these folks in this regard. This is a representative democracy and they are your legislators.

e-mail to Mr. Mandell: Hi Brad, Comment from you about the 3-C that someone posted on Urban Ohio.com: Comments: Since you have not included NWO, I will be sure to do everything in my power to sink this project. My media company reaches over 2 Million people in Ohio on a monthly basis, and I plan on letting all of them know what a bad idea this is. While I respect your opinion, you lack a few basic facts that I think you should be aware of before you form one: 1. Northwest Ohio has not been left out. I would suggest you read about the Ohio Hub plan at www.ohiohub.com. The Ohio Rail Development Commission has secured $7-million to begin the required environmental assessment of 4 high-speed rail corridors...including Detroit to Toledo to Columbus and Toledo to Cleveland and Pittsburgh. The environmental work will begin within the coming month and should be completed about the same time as the first 3C trains begin running (assuming the state gets the stimulus money and the project goes forward). 2. State law requires that the first intercity passenger rail corridor in Ohio be the 3-C and the 3-C is just the FIRST step toward the broader Ohio Hub plan that most definitely includes Northwest Ohio. You can't go from zero to satisfying everybody in one step. The 3-C is the backbone of the proposed Ohio Hub. If you want passenger rail to succeed in Northwest Ohio, we need to start with the densest route in the state that will have the highest ridership--the 3-C-- and build upon it from there. The 3-C ties the whole proposed Ohio Hub system together. If you want passenger rail in NW Ohio to be successful and you want public funds to be used wisely, this is the way to go. 3. Regarding Greyhound: Greyhound keeps eliminating service to small and medium-sized cities (most recently the NW Ohio city of Sandusky). At full build-out, the Ohio Hub will serve many such cities. Furthermore, one might be able to travel from Cleveland to Columbus and Cincinnati on Greyhound, but their schedules are horrible. Business travelers can't use it because their schedules don't serve the needs of business travelers. They don't even serve leisure travelers well. The only time Greyhound has ever been any use to me when I want to go to Columbus from Cleveland, for example, is when my trip involves an overnight stay. 4. I would strongly suggest you look at the other states that are already doing with state-funded passenger rail corridors what Ohio is proposing. States like North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, Washington, etc. There are 14 in all. Every one of the intercity passenger rail routes these states fund has been a success. They all started out taking longer than driving and most still do. The state of North Carolina found out the travel time vs. driving was #4 on the list of concerns for their riders-- and the ridership on their trains has increased sharply over the last decade. Talk to the guy who oversees North Carolina's passenger rail corridors. His name is Patrick Simmons and he works for NCDOT. 5. Your subsidy-per-passenger figure is meaningless-- and it's not even the standard metric in the transportation industry (subsidy per passenger mile is the standard metric). Every time we use a road, airport, ferry, public transit, or bike path, we're using subsidized transportation. No mode of transportation meant to serve the general public covers all of its costs. And no form of transportation is subsidized more than our roads. Gas taxes and license fees have never covered all of the costs (at best 2/3-- but that's declining), and those are subsidies anyway because it is cheaper to raise financial capital through government taxation than it is to raise the money on the private financial markets. It's not the subsidy that matters but the economic payback of the transportation investment/expenditure. See comment #8 6. Total vehicle miles traveled in the United States has been on the decline since 2002 or 2003 despite the fact that our population is still growing. This is US Census data... look it up. Vehicle ownership is also on the decline. Meanwhile, ridership on intercity passenger trains has been on the rise for several years-- particularly on the state-funded corridors. 7. More and more young professionals are showing a preference for cities that allow them to avoid the expense and hassles of car ownership. They want to be able to sit back "plug-in" more and sit behind the wheel less. If Ohio is going to stop its decades-long problem of brain drain, one of the things we need to do is take a different approach to transportation (yes there are others, too, but this is one of them). 8. I would also suggest that you read the Economic Impact Analysis of the Ohio Hub. Then look at existing state-funded corridors and research the economic paybacks those corridors have provided. Talk to people like Patrick Simmons. Contact Maine DOT about the Downeaster Corridor or Frank Busalacchi with the state of Wisconsin (Hiawatha Corridor) and talk to them about the economic paybacks of their passenger rail investments. 9. This country very much needs alternatives to car-dependency for a variety of reasons. Energy security is probably the most important one. We've gotten a reprieve on gas prices because of the economic downturn, but the price volatility will return. It's only a matter of time. States that have alternatives will be in a much better economic position than the ones that don't. What are you going to tell people when gas hits $4 a gallon or worse? That your narrow self-interest was more important than beginning the process of offering Ohioans alternatives to the gas pump by starting with the 3-C project? I could go on, but this is enough for now. Best regards, EDIT on 1/24: Now I'm wondering if he's just going to twist some of the things I tried to explain to him out of context so he can rant some more

I've been in the fight for 15 years. Just keeping my expectations low due to past experience. I know the fight is better organized in Ohio than it has ever been. Also attempting some level of reverse psychology. I'm really hoping I have to buy those couple of pitchers of beer. :wink: Few things would give me greater pleasure. Getting past the Controlling Board is only the first step. Won't the legislature ultimately have to approve ODOT's budget when it comes time to fund the operations? Granted, that's a ways a way... one thing at a time, but still... Part of me is just exhausted and tired of waiting... me, my family, friends and fellow Ohioans and my state's economy need those trains yesterday. Plus its very frustrating to see partisan ideological types in the Ohio legislature who oppose this thing mostly because it's an Obama/ARRA-stimulus/Strickland/Democrat-led initiative. It doesn't matter to them what the fact are about the economic payback and jobs created or that a clear majority of Ohioans have supported investments in passenger rail for many years. These folks are a minority in their own party to boot. Facts and democracy mean less to this very small but influential number of legislators than partisan politics. By the way, on the Linking Ohio home page... there isn't a single mention of JOBS. A good part of this has to be about jobs and the economy. That needs to be prominently displayed on the homepage. Yeah, there's the 'economic benefits' button, but there should be a line on the homepage that says something similar to: "The 3-C is also about creating 11,000 jobs" with an embedded hotlink on the word "jobs" that takes you to the economic benefits page.

^By then it will be too late

I think I've become much to jaded and burned out. Unfortunately, my prediction is that Ohio will be offered the stimulus money for the 3-C but the GOP troglodytes in the Ohio Senate will kill it. The Ohio Democrats won't play hardball with them on the issue because they are too clueless to understand why they should and why they would be able to score points by doing so. If I turn out to be wrong (that we do get the $$ and the Ohio Senate doesn't kill it), I would be happy to meet up with some UO folks at the Great Lakes Brewing Company and buy a couple of pitchers of beer as my punishment.

why can't we get 800 people to show up at a rally for rail in Ohio?

Iraq Could Delay Peak Oil a Decade http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6101