gildone

deleted

Here's a "Mayor's Letter" of support that can be distributed: Deleted because this isn't the final version...

Maybe the tactics are being employed because of the "just say no" Republicans? I'm not justifying it. just an observation. If more conservative states like Oklahoma and North Carolina can pull off funding rail corridors through their legislatures, we should be able to it here in Ohio with some hard work building grass roots support.

I disagree that it has to do with the administration's "tactics" (whatever they are). Many GOP members in the legislature are having the exact same reaction that many GOP members in legislatures all over the country and in congress have about this issue: the same, uninformed, ideological knee-jerk reaction about passenger trains. It's been happening for years. It's deja vu all over again...

This is probably about the 3rd time I've suggested this on this forum, but there is a way to bring Canton and Akron into the fold, but probably not until toward the final build-out phases of the Ohio Hub: A couple of round trips per day for each of the Cleveland-Chicago, Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit, and Cleveland-Buffalo routes proposed in the Ohio Hub could start in Canton and serve Akron as well. Earlier on in the project, they could be served by bus connections. This isn't anything out of the ordinary when looking at other corridors in the country. Some of the Detroit-Chicago corridor trains terminate in Pontiac, Michigan, some of the LA-San Diego trains terminate in San Luis Obispo, north of Los Angeles, and some of the NEC trains are extended to Newport News, VA. If someone who lives down that way would pass this idea along to the politicians in Akron and Canton, it would go along way to making them more enthusiastic.

Yes, KJP, we need to stop talking to ourselves and start talking to these misinformed types. Here's yet another opportunity help. Below is a resolution of support for the 3-C/Ohio Hub. It needs to be distributed far and wide to city councils, chambers of commerce, colleges/universities, civic organizations, trade associations, non-profits, etc. I would think that some organizations may want to add a WHEREAS or two to add their own twist . That's fine. If everyone on this list sent it to just one city council, or university or other organization, it would be a huge help. All Aboard Ohio needs to compile copies of this resolution, so once passed, copies of should be sent to: All Aboard Ohio 309 South 4th Street, Suite 304, Columbus, OH 43215 A RESOLUTION: To urge the Legislature of the State of Ohio to support the development of the Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati (3-C) passenger rail corridor as a step toward the Ohio Hub plan. BE IT RESOLVED BY _______________________________: WHEREAS, The Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) and the Ohio Department of Transportation have completed an analysis of constructing and operating an intercity and interstate passenger rail system serving Ohio and the Midwest, known as the Ohio Hub; and WHEREAS, State law requires that the Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati Corridor (hereinafter referred to as the 3-C Corridor) be the first passenger rail corridor to be developed, it is the first step toward the Ohio Hub plan which will connect all of Ohio's major cities with each other and with surrounding states; and WHEREAS, The Economic Impact Analysis of the Ohio Hub completed by the Ohio Rail Development Commission concludes that construction and operation of the rail system will create thousands of jobs and a significant economic stimulus that will exceed the cost of construction and operation of the system, the economic benefits justify the investment; and WHEREAS, Passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the federal stimulus bill) presents an unprecedented one-time opportunity to invest hundreds of millions of federal dollars in Ohio's rail infrastructure, without the need for a state match; and WHEREAS, in 2008, the Congress of the United States passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act that specifies an 80% federal construction match putting rail projects on the same cost sharing basis as other modes of transportation; and WHEREAS, the statewide "Tracking Ohio Poll" completed in 2001 (prior to 9/11) shows that 80% of Ohioans support passenger rail development in the state; and WHEREAS, Ohio and the nation are faced with an array of urgent economic, energy, environmental, and mobility challenges that require bold, effective action be taken to implement strategic and essential investments in our rail system; and WHEREAS, Fourteen other states have successfully developed passenger corridors, and of those 14 states, 13 of them have lower population density than Ohio, in none of the 14 states has the economic payoff been less than the construction and operating support; and. WHEREAS, Ohio has over 100 companies that supply products and services to the rail industry that will benefit from the construction and ongoing maintenance of the system; and WHEREAS, Ohio's general fund would see a net savings of $2.3 million to $4.6 million per year from a small portion of state employees taking the train across the state rather than driving; and WHEREAS, The Census shows 8.5% of Ohio households lack cars and 34% of households have just one car, that Ohio's population 65 years and old is 13% of the total, and will rise to 20% in 20 years, passenger rail is an important and necessary option for maintaining the mobility of Ohio's citizens. WHEREAS, Business travelers can get work done on the train, including with wireless internet, and save time, the Ohio Hub will increase the productivity and competitiveness of Ohio's workforce; and WHEREAS, the Ohio Hub will ultimately have efficient intermodal connections with several airports, both within and without the State of Ohio, that will increase Ohio's global competitiveness, therefore be it resolved, BE IT RESOLVED, That we, ___________________________ ask the General Assembly of Ohio support the Ohio Department of Transportation's request for a legislative authorization to develop passenger rail service linking cities in Ohio's 3-C Corridor (Cleveland, Galion, Columbus, Springfield, Riverside, Dayton, Middletown, Sharonville and Cincinnati). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we call on members of the Ohio General Assembly and the Ohio Congressional Delegation to support ODOT's request for said authorization. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we direct copies of this resolution be sent to the Ohio Senate Leadership, all members of the Ohio Senate Transportation Committee, to all members of the Ohio Congressional Delegation as well as to ODOT Director Jolene Molitoris, Ohio Rail Development Commission Director Matt Dietrich, and to print and broadcast news media serving our community.

I did a trip on the Auto Train a few weeks ago. It was a great experience. In terms of the professionalism and courtesy of the crew, it's the best I've ever seen on Amtrak. The terminals are clean and the whole process of loading/unloading the cars was seamless. They board you 90 minutes before the train leaves, but offer wine and cheese in the lounge cars from 3-4 pm. We even arrived (at both ends of our round trip) 90 minutes early (more of a sign of the state of the economy than anything-- freight traffic is way down). On the way to Florida, our train was loaded with 503 passengers and 173 automobiles and ran with multiple diners and lounges (479 passengers and 168 cars on the way back). All in all, the best Amtrak experience I've ever had.

The Plain Dealer ran this too: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/thomas_suddes/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1236418411306130.xml&coll=2 His concerns about the Controlling Board aside, judging by some of his comments about the 3-C/Ohio Hub, it's apparent he really hasn't done his homework. He should start by reading the Ohio Hub Study and the 2007 Economic Impact Analysis. Groups like All Aboard Ohio and others have their work cut out for them educating the press and politicians about the plan.

I'm glad to see that Seitz is open minded. It appears he has not read the Ohio Hub plan, though There will be a downtown station in Columbus.

If I understand correctly what I was told yesterday, members of the Ohio Congressional delegation and even Amtrak can submit the request for stimulus funds for the 3-C. If that's the case, we can still get this through by the 4/18/09 deadline. If that can happen, then it may be possible to put a positive spin on this: We now know pretty clearly who the opposition is and what their arguments are (and their arguments are weak). That gives us several months for groups like All Aboard Ohio to make the rounds in the state with a Mayor's letter and resolutions for city councils, chambers of commerce, etc. Then, by the time Amtrak's study comes out in August, we'll have a thick stack of these letters and resolutions to give to the Ohio Senate. Let's get busy and gear up for the end run around these folks

^If you want it to become reality, contact your federal and state reps and senators and the governor.

^if we can't get the 3-C included in the Senate's bill, let's hope we can get it in conference committee... Attention EVERY Ohioan on this list. If you haven't contacted your state senator and asked them to support the 3-C corridor in ODOT's budget bill, please do so ASAP: http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/ There's no good excuse for anyone on this list not doing so, unless you are somehow unable to get to a computer or phone.

I think a Hopkins stop is crucial too. One of the major goals of the Ohio Hub is intermodal connections. I'm not sure the state would want an Ohio Hub route that doesn't ultimately serve Hopkins. As busy as Berea still is, freight traffic is noticeably down. I drive down Front Street every day, and often twice per day. I can sometimes now go a full week without getting stopped by a train. If nothing else, that buys a little extra time to expand capacity through the area. Regarding Queensgate: what are the options for increasing capacity and by how much?

^this would be very nice indeed. With the 3-C and CLE-PGH service on the horizon, Cleveland desperately needs a better station.

^ and: 4) investing in mass transit and intercity rail. Land use reform is a huge one and I'm glad you mentioned it.

^how about sending it to the city councils along the Ohio Hub routes too!

This is great to see, even though it's a double-edge sword: High ridership is a great thing, but now the ride is just as cramped as it always was. Last month when I rode it, I noticed that the new buses were running just as full as the old ones. What a concept... provide quality transit and people use it in droves (I hear it works for commuter rail and intercity trains too...:wink:). I know RTA gets this concept, but our legislature and congress need to get it too. BTW, are all of the ticketing machines working yet?

Airports are one of the major gateways to any large city. While cities around the world have invested in new open, bright, airy terminals, most US cities have not. Thomas Friedman commented in a column recently about how the old, cramped, terminals of most US cities give them the feel of a developing country-- except that many developing countries have built state-of-the-art airport terminals. If you want good infrastructure... you have to pay for it. We've chosen debt and military empire instead of choosing to have world-class infrastructure. We have only ourselves to blame.

There is no doubt that an infrastructure investment based stimulus is needed. U-6 unemployment (closest US calculation to how the EU calculates unemployment, and a more comprehensive reflection of problems in the labor market-- like the number of people working part time who want to be working full time but can't find full time work) was 13.5 percent in Dec 2008. Another 1.25 million jobs would be a huge blow. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

^I just gave it a cursory read. I think the task force did a very good job. The report is comprehensive and appropriately blunt.

^Agreed. We're not predicting the end of the world, not even James H. Kunstler. And, KJP is right. Whenever a biofuel or some other alternative energy story comes out, someone jumps on it and says something to the effect of "See, the peak oilers are wrong". More depth of thought is necessary. Peak Oil is about the global peak in cheap, easy, high energy returned on energy invested oil. Let's clear this up here: 1. All forms of heavy oil, Tar Sands, Oil Shales, etc have very low energy returned on energy invested. 2. When it comes to biofuels, even the best have much lower energy return on energy invested than the cheap, easy oil we've been dependent upon for 150 years and with some, the energy returns are negative. Plus we can really only justify the use of those fuels that don't compete with food production, and not just the crop type, but whether or not we need to grow it where food crops should be grown instead. This eliminates the potential of biofuels to replace oil use as we know it. We will use biofuels, but other things will have to change significantly-- particularly our mobility choices and the way we inhabit the landscape. 3. In light of #2 above, it's inappropriate to just assume we can switch out oil for biofuels and have life go on as it has been with respect to western world levels of driving Human life and human society is not going to end because of peak oil, but it is going to change radically. Will there be difficulties? Yes, to a degree because radical changes are seldom easy. But, many of the changes will ultimately be good... better for people and the planet. The key will come with making the right decisions. Making the assumption in #3 would be one of the wrong decisions. I don't agree that we'll be able to maintain automobile use at the levels Americans are accustomed/forced to, but in the video below, Amory Lovins makes very valid points, particularly about energy efficiency, the huge potential of which is almost always missed in the mainstream media: The article below about passive solar homes being built in Germany that don't require a furnace is also interesting (and would be one of the rare exceptions to my statement above about the mainstream media): No Furnaces, but Heat Aplenty in "Passive Houses" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27house.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all

. This is a pretty typical response from the anti-peak oil crowd. Peak oil nothing more than production rates relative to demand and the natural production cycle every single oil field goes through. Oil companies have used all of the best technology in the North Sea fields and they are now in terminal decline-- never to recover. 54 or 55 out of 65 oil producing countries in the world have passed their natural production peaks and will never recover. Technology can't change these realities. One thing that needs to be understood is that technology does not equal energy. Energy is what you get when you burn oil, natural gas, and coal, when you split uranium, fuse hydrogen, the wind blowing, waves sloshing around, the suns rays. Technology is how you use energy or how you make these forms of energy of accessible. Technology can't change the fact that 84% of oil producing nations are on the downside of their oil production peaks. Technology can't change the amount of energy it takes to make tar sands and oil shale into usable oil. Technology can't change peak oil. Technology can't change the fact that the supply of fossil fuels is finite. 1/1/09 addendum: Technology is also itself very dependent upon oil. Today's existing environment shows that we are on a global oil production plateau. Today's existing environment is that Mexico (our #2 supplier) is able to export less oil every year and that in 12-36 months it is quite probable that Mexico will cease being an oil exporter. Today's existing environment is that export declines that are occurring other oil producing nations as well. Gloom and doom? Panic? No. Just reality. Since you can't rely on unknowns, you need to start planning and implementing necessary changes. That's not occurring. We have no plan for a transition. When reality is giving you strong signals and you have no plan, that generally equals trouble.

^Considering that Mexico may be done as an exporter of oil in as little as 12 months, this may not be a bad investment move.

There's another side to these weather-related train delays... the freight railroads used to keep an army of maintenance people around to keep everything operating smoothly. In fact, in the Dec issue of Trains magazine, there is a picture from the 1950s of a guy using a drip torch to melt ice from a switch. For years now, the railroads have been using temp agencies for a lot of this stuff. According to my dad (retired railroader), the temps rarely would dress properly for the weather and spend most of their time in the shanty. Sometimes the locomotive crew is asked to clear the switches, but it's not like they carry drip torches on the engine. The freights will sometimes use propane powered switch heaters on important switches, but they keep these to a minimum because of propane theft. My dad said there was one guy on the railroad who converted his car to run on propane that he would swipe from switch-heater tanks or tanks for heating the shanties. As bad as Amtrak handled the delays once they occurred, these infrastructure and maintenance issues that were the main culprits weren't their fault.

There was a so-called "study" done a year or two ago that tried to say that hybrid cars needed more energy and resources to build than they would save, so it's ok to buy that SUV. It was debunked. Unfortunately, I cannot find the references... What no one wants to say is that Americans have to prepare for a world of less driving. There is really no way around it.