gildone

^ok folks, we need to write our state reps and state senators and ask them to support ORDC's plan.

Not if McCain gets in. He hates Amtrak. Although in the senate he has said that he would go along with the will of congress on the issue.

^That's true for top tier cities like New York City, San Francisco, etc, but it's not true everywhere. Look at all of the rich neighborhoods here in the Cleveland area that are suburban/exurban: Westlake, Rocky River, Hudson, Beachwood, Hunting Valley, etc.

It was financed largely by the gutting of America's economy. Suffice it to say, there are a lot of things coming into play that are chipping away at the privileged economic position we have enjoyed, and not all of them are economic. However, this isn't the place to discuss these things in detail, so I'll stop here. A good read on the economic factors can be found in Clyde Prestowitz's book: Three Billion New Capitalists. Prestowitz is a former Reagan administration official in the Department of Commerce.

^Actually, we are becoming less and less important in the global economy. We're no longer the biggest consumer market-- we're actually behind India, China, and the EU-- and our rather belligerent foreign policy of recent years (well, it actually has had varying degrees of belligerence for a few decades now, it's just become much more overt-- only 15% of the world likes us now) is not helping matters either. I'm not convinced a global recession is going to do much with respect to oil prices. Global production stopped growing after May 2005, some former oil exporters are now net oil importers, like Indonesia and Britain, production is falling in several key fields like Burgan (Kuwait), Cantarell (Mexico), Venezuela, etc. Consumption in China and India will still rise sharply this year, regardless. We'll just have to see how things unfold...

Indonesia now an energy importer: http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=757

Sounds like that law needs to change. What's the difference what the city used the money for? Sounds like unnecessary regulation to me.

You can take a train from Williamsburg to Richmond, then a bus from Richmond to Charlottesville to connect with the Cardinal, but I know a 3-seat ride isn't much better than driving.

Cincinnati-Louisville-Nashville-Memphis and points beyond is another one to look at too.

^The commuter lots at Pearl and the Turnpike and at 480 and 252 are always packed. Give people real, useable choices and they will ride in healthy numbers. Throw in high gas prices, and they ride even more. Sadly, there is no way for me to get to my job by transit and the 2 or 3 people who live near enough to me to carpool don't want to or are unable to carpool. Either I quit my job, which I don't want to do, or I suck it up and keep driving. Right now, my car gets 30-31 mpg on the highway. I'm going to have to do better with my next vehicle and/or hope that a job I'd actually like closer to home or in downtown Cleveland comes along (highly unlikely...). I could move closer to work, but then I give up my reasonably walkable community of Berea and my transit access to Cleveland. I'd probably end up driving the same amount in the end.

Kudos to the Strickland administration. Facing up to tough choices isn't fun, but it has to be done.

^The Cardinal needs to be daily and there should be additional frequencies day scheduled such that there is daylight service along the entire route. The additional frequencies could be another LD train or separate Cincy-Chicago and Cincy-Washington trains or something similar. The need for additional frequencies is true for pretty much all of the LD routes. Furthermore, investment needs to be made to improve on-time performance and track speeds. It's not about knocking what the other guys have. It's about perspective and parity. Rail gets knocked all the time by the many of the same people who support these aviation subsidies. I have no problem with an essential air services subsidy where it makes sense. The problem is that Congress and DOT consistently and continuously looking within each mode for solutions to problems that exist within each mode. We have to stop trying to solve these problems in a vacuum. Nothing short of a holistic approach to problem solving in our transportation system is going to produce meaningful results.

Subsidies keep small-airport flights in the air http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-30-cheap-flights_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip First few paragraphs: By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY Imagine an aviation system in which planes fly two-thirds empty, fares are as low as $46 and the government pays up to 93% of the cost of a flight. You don't have to look far. That system exists in the USA — and quietly is expanding even as most of the nation's 2 million daily air travelers see fares tick upward for increasingly crowded flights. Each day, about 3,000 passengers enjoy mostly empty, heavily subsidized flights, financed by a 30-year-old program that requires the government to guarantee commercial air service to scores of small communities that can't support it themselves.Subsidies keep small-airport flights in the air...

^They forgot pharmaceuticals-- very, very important. An oil executive once said (I forget his name) "With all of the useful things we make from oil, burning it for transportation fuel is makes about as much sense as burning Picassos for heat"

More importantly perhaps, I copied the ORDC Commissioner (Jolene Molitoris), ORDC's Executive Director Matt Dietrich, the Lieutenant governor and several people on the governor's staff who are involved with development and energy issues. These are all folks who are very likely to personally read my letter and they all (except maybe Dietrich?) have the governor's ear. I also e-mailed it to Eugene Krebs at Greater Ohio (I got a response thanking me for including Greater Ohio in my letter). As a former legislator, he knows people in the legislature which can't hurt either.

My 12/16/07 letter to Strickland about the Ohio Hub, sprawl, and energy security: Governor Ted Strickland Riffe Center, 30th Floor 77 South High Street Columbus, OH 43215-6108 Dear Governor Strickland: I am encouraged that during your campaign, and thus far in your term of office, you have embraced the Ohio Hub freight and passenger rail plan and the goals of Greater Ohio to reduce farmland loss and auto-centric sprawl. This is exactly the kind of forward thinking the state of Ohio desperately needs if our economy is to remain viable. Ohio's over-reliance on highways has made the state, its economy, and its residents vulnerable as oil prices have risen. There is, however, another important reason the Ohio Hub and sprawl reduction is vital to Ohio's future: our energy security. While it has received little attention, it is well documented that global production of conventional crude oil stopped growing in the summer of 2005, and oil production in many of the world's key oil fields is declining. New supplies are unable to both offset the declines and satisfy growing demand. Furthermore, export capacity in several oil producing nations is declining as internal demand in those countries soars. The problem of rising internal demand in producing nations combined with depletion is creating a very serious problem for importing nations—particularly the United States. For example, production in Mexico's Cantarell oil field complex is declining at over 10% per year. Rising internal demand combined with depletion will result in Mexico (America's #2 supplier), having no oil to export in 3 to 5 years. It is also well documented that we cannot depend upon unconventional sources of oil (such as tar sands and oil shales) or biofuels to solve the problem alone. Even taken together, they are only a partial solution. In the case of auto-centric sprawl, we continue to lose farmland to very energy-intensive development patterns at a time when we need to increase biofuel production. This makes farmland loss a matter of energy security. While Ohio cannot be self-sufficient in supplying biofuels for all of the automobiles in the state, we may be able to produce enough to operate the Ohio Hub and our urban transit systems with excess for a portion of automobile usage. By far, the largest source of energy we have at our disposal is efficiency. Therefore, the most workable solution is to invest in more energy efficient forms of freight and passenger transportation and to discourage energy-intensive development patterns. This is why the Ohio Hub and reducing farmland loss and auto-centric sprawl are so vitally important. Furthermore, these goals are mutually supportive. Intercity passenger rail encourages compact development in downtown areas while policies that encourage re-development of urban cores will make rail services more successful. These goals will also have multiplier benefits in that they will help reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality. Please continue to vigorously pursue these goals. Ohio's future depends on it. Sincerely, Strickland's Response (written by staff, of course): 12/21/07 Dear Mr. ________: thank you for your recent letter concerning a passenger rail transportation system. I appreciate you taking the time to contact my office regarding this important issue. I will be mindful of the views that you have expressed as I continue to develop Ohio's public transportation policy. Once again, thank you for writing. Please feel free to contact my office in the future if we can be of assistance. Sincerely, Ted Strickland Governor

I read an article in Trains magazine a couple of years ago about the whole GM-Firestone-Standard Oil streetcar conspiracy. The author made the argument that GM bought up the streetcar companies more because they wanted a bigger piece of the transportation pie than they wanted (at least initially) to destroy the streetcar companies. I didn't really buy the argument. It's all too coincidental that GM benefited enormously from selling more buses once the streetcar lines were demolished. The author didn't really say much about the role of Firestone and Standard Oil either.

Anyone know how the tax benefit to encourage transit use by allowing commuters to purchase transit passes with pre-tax dollars got morphed into a benefit that also allows downtown commuters to receive the benefit for parking??? Earlier this week I received some information at work that explained the "Commuter Choice Benefit" and that it now includes a break for downtown parking fees. Congress always manages to mess things up...

^I have to comment on the part about the Carl Etnier trying to travel to last fall's Yellow Springs Peak Oil conference on land only: I actually contacted the organizers of the Yellow Springs conference a few months prior to it and offered to help put them in contact with the Ohio Rail Development Commission so someone from there could give a presentation about the Ohio Hub plan, etc. I had checked with ORDC and was told they would give a presentation if asked. Surprisingly, the organizers of the conference had NO interest in having a presentation about the Ohio Hub at the conference. I found this to be quite puzzling. They never did give me much of an answer. Only that "this conference is about local, community solutions" meaning that a state-wide proposal didn't fit the category of local. I explained to them that if I were an Ohioan attending the conference-- and I'm sure most of the attendees were Ohioans-- I would want to know that the state is actually trying to do something that is an important part of the solution to the peak oil problem. After all, people are still going to need (and want)some alternative form of intercity travel that is locally accessible. It didn't sway them.

^We need to get the troglodytes out of Congress who buy into the anti-rail baloney-- a difficult task. If the Dems lose control of Congress, the next chair of the T&I committee is going to be John Mica (R-FL). A root fungus understands more about transportation than he does-- especially when it comes to rail.

True, I'm familiar with that, but at the same time this has grown out of the fact that NY has supported Amtrak and Amtrak has to make good on that support. It's a legal settlement, but it's also a quid pro quo (albeit forced in this case). The point being, if NY can rehab equipment and support the Empire Corridor, Ohio can begin doing the same with corridors here.

One of the reasons E-check didn't die is because manufacturers in Ohio were concerned that if E-check were dropped, it would result in the state coming down even harder on industry to reduce emissions. This got me thinking. E-check is, IMHO, a worthless program because it does not solve the problem, it only addresses a symptom. The real problem is simply too many cars on the road because people don't have enough choices (not to mention bad land use policies). Building the Ohio Hub and expanding urban transit would do far more to reduce auto emissions than E-check. There is no better way to reduce auto emissions than by reducing the number of cars on the road. Perhaps the ORDC Commissioner and the director of Ohio EPA should be talking? (And maybe Greater Ohio too?)

If Amtrak can kick $30 million for corridor improvements in New York, then there is no reason why Ohio couldn't work a deal with Amtrak to improve service in Ohio now while we pursue the Ohio Hub. The state needs to be a willing partner, though and cough up some money of its own.

^I have to admit that this sounds like a bit of good news. Not that this is going to solve everything, but it may help ease the transition a bit.

November 16, 2007 The Honorable George Voinovich 524 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Honorable George Voinovich: I am disappointed to learn that you voted against S. 294. Far from being just another Amtrak re-authorization, this bill would have accomplished several important things, including: 1. Making much needed structural reforms to Amtrak. Although it is true that additional reforms than those in the bill are needed, you have to start somewhere, and unlike the Bush Administration’s bill, S. 294 got the first steps right. 2. Authorizing money to assist states like Ohio with their own intercity passenger rail plans. 3. Leveling the federal transportation funding playing field for rail by providing an 80% federal match for capital investment in intercity passenger and freight rail projects as we do for highways and aviation. Item #’s 2 and 3 are particularly important for the state of Ohio as it advances the Ohio Hub Plan which has a high level of support among Ohio’s citizens, local governments, and business community. I understand your dislike for Amtrak. However, this makes your vote all the more puzzling because a ‘no’ vote on S. 294 was, in effect, a vote for the status quo for Amtrak. Why would you not vote for significant and positive change? As one of your constituents, I would like some clarification on your position. Did you vote no because of Amtrak or did you vote no because you do not support passenger rail at all? The reason I ask is because as I recall, when you were governor, you sent your chief of staff, Paul Mifsud, to admonish the Ohio Rail Development Commission for submitting a budget request to advance passenger rail service along the Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati corridor. Given that one of ORDC’s statutory obligations is to advance passenger rail service along the 3-C corridor, the request was not out of line. If it is true that you do not support passenger rail as a legitimate mode of transportation, it is time to re-consider your position for the following reasons: 1. Our transportation system, both in Ohio and nationally, is at the breaking point. Highways and airports are congested and no amount of expansion of these systems over the past few decades has brought the type of relief that is truly needed. The looming bankruptcy of the Highway Trust Fund will only make this problem worse. 2. Oil prices continue to rise as supplies have tightened. Global oil production stopped growing in 2005, yet demand is still rising. Unless we make our transportation system more efficient by reducing our reliance on automobiles and airplanes, America is headed for a heap of trouble. The most cost-effective way to do that is to modernize and expand intercity passenger rail. 3. Consistently, national and regional polls show a super-majority of Ohioans and Americans (70-80%) wanting our government to invest in passenger rail. Support is this high because people want alternatives to driving and flying. Business travelers want passenger rail because of the productivity benefits. Aging travelers want passenger rail as driving and flying become more difficult for them. Discretionary travelers want passenger rail because of perpetually rising gas prices, overcrowded highways, delays and security hassles at airports, and the horrific levels to which airline customer service has fallen. And yet they are left with no choice but to drive or fly. 4. We need greater economic development (both in Ohio and nationally) and rail is a proven, effective tool for promoting economic development. According to two conservative economic impact studies just completed this year, the proposed Ohio Hub passenger and freight rail plan will bring economic benefits to Ohio that total more than twice the cost to build it. In other words, rail is a wise investment for relieving highway and airport congestion, for our energy security, for travelers who need more choices, and for taxpayers. Thank you for considering my comments. I hope you have a pleasant Thanksgiving.