tt342998

I don't recall seeing this corridor in a COTA plan, but it does connect some large residential areas and areas ripe for redevelopment with downtown Columbus. I also don't remember seeing any modal options (light rail, express bus, etc) outlined in the Far East Freeway study, which was not a surprise. If this area is looked at again, I hope this line gets some serious consideration for something other than limited freight.

For me, the decay of urban sprawl is shown perfectly in this section of the Central Ohio. The interchanges of Hamilton Road, Brice Road, SR 256, and SR 310 is a perfect example of the "evolution" of urban sprawl. The retail/housing started at Hamilton Road and when traffic congestion/retail glut came they just picked up and moved east one interchange instead of trying to refurbish what they (residents and businesses) already had. SR 256 has much of the retail/housing that used to be on Hamilton and Brice Road. When the congestion becomes too much for this area, it will just move on the SR 310. This may be getting a little off topic, but considering a lightly-used rail line cuts right through this section of Central Ohio, would it be possible to use this for light rail? Maybe relocate what little freight traffic there is out of the corridor and convert it to light rail to help kickstart some sustainable development? The commuters are obviously there as evidence by the Far East Freeway study.

I too would like to see some resolution agreed upon that addresses the landowner's concerns while preserving the bike trail. This trail has the potential to be a wonderful asset by linking the City of Heath trail with the trail in Newark and Licking County. Possible extensions to Dawes Arboretum are feasible as well. I would think it would be highly used since two high schools abut the trail being constructed. Regardless, the wreckless way in which the trail is being constructed is troublesome. Unfortunately, this method of "doing business" has been used on other portions of trails in Licking County. Another concern not mentioned in the article is the actual construction being used. Having seen the new trail, I would not be happy if I were Licking County/City of Heath to be inheriting a trail that will no doubt need major maintenance due to the poor construction techniques being used. The reconstructed crossings are in terrible shape, there are bridges with known problems, and asphalt should not be put in this late in the construction season.

Plan likely to spell big changes for ODOT Tom Niehaus State Sen. COLUMBUS - A seemingly routine business plan filed last week with the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) has implications for anyone who drives and many of the major roads they travel. Last week the Ohio Department of Transportation Director Jim Beasley released his 2008-2009 Business Plan. It paints a troubling picture of flat revenues and increasing expenses that will result in significant changes in how the state agency responsible for overseeing the maintenance, construction and funding of major roads will operate. Gongwer News Service in Columbus detailed the plans November 26, and I've drawn on their report for most of this column. Director Beasley outlined the proposal for me several days in advance of its formal release. He and other administration officials contacted key legislators, especially those on JCARR where their plans will be presented. I am vice-chairman of that committee. The agency wants to shift funding away from new road projects toward maintenance of existing roads and bridges. In addition, the agency will adopt new criteria for construction funding that will place a greater emphasis on economic development and urban revitalization. Road construction projects have been plagued by higher costs for steel, concrete and asphalt, the last of which is directly tied to the cost of oil. When you add higher fuel costs that affect us all, the increased costs are almost 40% higher in the last three years. ODOT spokesman Scott Varner said the previous administration responded to rapidly rising inflation costs by cutting the money for core roadway and bridge maintenance projects rather than reducing funds for proposed construction projects, according to Gongwer. Last year the Transportation Review and Advisory Council (TRAC) approved major new projects that would cost 47% more than the projected funding available. That is done in part because some of the approved projects never get built. Revenues are flat from both state and federal sources. Ohio taxes gasoline by the gallon rather than as a percentage of the cost of a gallon of fuel. So even though gasoline prices we pay at the pump are higher, that does not mean more revenue for the state. And as newer cars get more miles per gallon, state revenues remain flat or fall. In addition to reprioritizing funding for projects costing more than $5 million within the TRAC process, ODOT plans to refocus more funding toward smaller maintenance projects that aren't subject to approval by the panel, according to Varner. The agency was critical of an amendment legislators added to the two-year $7.8 billion transportation budget last spring, which prohibits the agency from starting any new highway project until construction commences on projects TRAC previously approved. The business plan says the measure constrains ODOT's "flexibility to adjust construction projects - based on delays caused by environmental, right-of-way, or community-related issues - without threatening potential future projects." I remember that amendment well. I was the only Senator to speak out against it on the Senate floor this spring after Beasley told me it would be problematic. No one else spoke up. As I recall everyone voted for the bill. The governor's failure to veto that provision was even more puzzling. That was the administration's last chance to remove that onerous provision. It will not take long for these changes proposed by ODOT to affect a construction project near you.

The business plan sets a very different tone towards public transit and land use considerations than past ODOT administrations. Obviously, the reference to the Ohio Hub is encouraging news, but the formation of the 21st Century Transportation Task Force and the attention to "revitalization of urban areas" gives evidence of a strong commitment to multi-modal transportation that was lacking before.

Good to hear the project has been completed. Should help out both Mount Vernon and Newark to attract industry to the area. I was actually surprised to hear the rail line was being rehabbed - I always figured the "powers to be" in Licking and Knox Counties had this line pegged for a rails-to-trails project.

Just curious if a commuter service has been discussed during the panhandle committee's discussions? A commuter service seems to be quite feasible in this corridor if the ridership numbers are there, which I would think would be the case considering the commuter traffic between Zanesville, Newark, Heath, and Pataskala to CMH and Columbus.

Committee eyeing Columbus to Pittsburgh corridor By KATHIE DICKERSON For The Advocate WEST LAFAYETTE -- A committee dedicated to completing four-lane highways from Columbus to Pittsburgh hopes state and federal officials will recognize them once they complete a formalization process. The Columbus-Pittsburgh Corridor Committee met Friday at Raven's Glenn Winery and Restaurant near West Lafayette. Nothing in the budget was passed this summer by Ohio legislators that prohibits the Ohio Department of Transportation from planning projects or using federal dollars set aside for studies for potential highway expansion projects, State Sen. Joy Padgett told the committee. "What we said was, 'Don't keep putting in Tier 1 (Transportation Review Advisory Council) projects over the ones that have been there for years and aren't completed,'" she said. The committee's mission is to complete four-lane highways stretching 160 miles from Columbus to Pittsburgh, and part of that route includes a remaining two-lane stretch of Ohio 16 in Coshocton County. Coshocton County officials were told in August by representatives of ODOT work wasn't going ahead with that expansion until further notice from the state. Full article at http://www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071117/NEWS01/711170309/1002

New hope for Newark's old Arcade Shops and shoppers might rediscover 101-year-old gem Friday, November 16, 2007 3:55 AM By Josh Jarman, The Columbus Dispatch NEWARK, Ohio -- A long-overlooked jewel could get a bit of polishing this winter as new owners renovate the Arcade downtown. The mall's new owner, Newark Downtown Center Inc., led by Thomas Cotton, bought the 101-year-old structure in late August for $425,000 with the hope of returning it to a central shopping destination. The owner is planning a holiday-themed event Thanksgiving weekend to reintroduce the historic shopping center to Newark. The centerpiece of the event will be the return of Santa Claus after the annual lighting of the Licking County Courthouse decorations at about 7 p.m. Nov. 23. There also will be a craft fair that night and a children's gift workshop on Nov. 24. Visitors also will be asked to share their memories -- oral or written -- of the Arcade during the two-day event. Read more at http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2007/11/16/Arcade.ART_ART_11-16-07_C10_SS8G7M4.html?sid=101

City's downtown buildings fare well in analysis High ratings could help boost occupancy, business By ABBEY STIRGWOLT Advocate Reporter NEWARK -- The few small teams of people who battled a blazing August sun to spend a day trudging through Newark were pleasantly surprised by what they learned: Namely, despite complaints of rundown buildings and overgrown properties, the area appeared to be more heavily occupied than they thought. "I was surprised with the results overall," said Cheri Hottinger, president of the Licking County Chamber of Commerce. "There were very few buildings that we rated bad." The group did a walking tour and analyzed, by sight, 794 properties in the downtown area, rating them in one of five categories: "excellent" being the best, and "bad" the worst. The results then were compiled into a series of maps identifying how each property rated. More than half were classified as either "excellent" or "good"; only 2 percent were "bad" -- defined as "totally deteriorated and should be razed." Participants in the survey included representatives from Wachtel & McAnally, the Licking County Chamber of Commerce, the city of Newark and the Port Authority. Read more at http://www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071104/NEWS01/711040301

Got this from www.ohio.gov - quite an appointment for Ohio and ORDC. The Ohio Rail Development Commission is charged with developing, promoting and supporting safe, adequate and efficient rail service throughout the state. Jolene Molitoris, of Dublin, was appointed as chair of the Ohio Rail Development Commission. Molitoris was appointed as the first woman Federal Railroad Administrator by President Bill Clinton in 1993. She has served as the executive director of the Ohio Rail Transportation Authority (ORTA) and the deputy director of rail for the Ohio Department of Transportation. Molitoris received a bachelor's degree from the Catholic University of America in 1963 and a graduate degree from Case Western Reserve University in 1964.

Panel dreams up $1B Pittsburgh transit link By Justin Vellucci TRIBUNE-REVIEW Thursday, November 1, 2007 A network of automated, electric cars could carry riders underground or on elevated light rail between Downtown, Oakland and Allegheny County's airport corridor on a more than $1 billion transit system introduced Wednesday by County Chief Executive Dan Onorato's Transportation Action Team. The 15-member team, which Onorato formed in March 2006, outlined the proposal as a key finding of its short- and long-term transit goals for the region. .....

The link below is to MORPC's inventory of freight operations and right-of-way for their study area. As stated in the report, it is meant to be a starting point for COTA/MORPC if rail transportation is explored again. Each corridor is examined for additional transportation modes (transit, bike paths, shared-use paths, etc). It would be nice to see if these corridors could be "optimized" to free up more space for light rail/commuter rail operations, especially those corridors with less than one train a day in the corridor. http://www.morpc.org/web/transportation/freight/2007RailInventory_000.htm

I don't agree with much of what Sununu was saying - in fact I don't see how anyone can put up the argument that investing in any mode of transportation has to be profitable. In my mind transportation (whatever mode that it may be) will not be profitable itself, but the opportunities that are afforded by it should be the measure of its success. What my thoughts were geared towards was is the current system of Amtrak the most efficient and does it serve the taxpayers the best - not the amendments that Sununu was proposing. And to carry it out further, how does Amtrak (or revamped version of Amtrak) fit into a truly integrated multi-modal transportation system? I admit that I am still learning about rail and how to measure its effectiveness, but what I see is that the regional routes have a higher growth in ridership - St Louis to Chicago, the Downeaster, Acela, Capitol Corridor, etc. Whenever success stories are brought up about higher ridership, higher growth in ridership, increased urban development it is centered around these regional routes. Again, this is my biased opinion, but my thought is implementing a Pittsburgh-Columbus-Chicago route or a Columbus-Indianapolis-St Louis route does more to improve mobility, encourage urban redevelopment, improve chances for commuter rail options than improving the on-time performance of the Lake Shore Limited. However, I would be elated to have any train service that came through Columbus....

Buckeye rail cars will go to Zanesville Former line might be turned into bike path By ABBEY STIRGWOLT Advocate Reporter HEATH -- Twelve Buckeye Central Scenic Railroad cars were moved Saturday and Sunday to a temporary resting place. "Right now (the cars are) sitting just north of Hopewell Drive, and (they) will be moving to an area just outside of South Zanesville," said Eric Curtis, president of the Buckeye Central Scenic Railroad. "Then we're going to start up a new scenic railroad." The future of the railway cars and the track they're leaving behind is being planned.

KJP - thanks for the link to the other thread - some very good information on it. Maybe this is due to my own lack of knowledge on the issue, but as I see it investment in regional plans (what I think of as short-haul routes) are more beneficial in terms of increasing ridership, promoting urban developments, promoting increased investments commuter rail options. Another reason I would vote for regional rail plans as opposed to long distance rail is that issue of state support for the regional rail as opposed to no support for long distance rail. Again my thoughts are that states and even local MPOs and cities are more apt to support a service that is fast and frequent as opposed to trains that service a location 1 to 3 times a day.

I was watching the CSPAN coverage of the Senate floor debate on Amtrak/passenger rail funding last night – yea it was a slow TV night. One of the amendments being proposed by the New Hampshire Senator was to cut the long distance routes that are poor performing – the Senator gave the criteria for poor performance and tied it into the amount of subsidy required. While I do not wish to have rail service of any kind diminished, it seemed to me that these long distance routes do not really fit in with what Amtrak has for its long term plan or what the individual states are planning. I guess my thought is why not focus solely on the corridor-only services like what is proposed in the Ohio Hub, Keystone Corridor, California High Speed Rail plan, etc. These plans focus on connecting cities within that 300 – 600 mile range that high speed rail is competitive. While I don’t agree with everything the NH Senator said last night, I think he has a valid point in that we should look at trimming these long distance routes for more corridor-focused routes – i.e. put more resources into the Ohio Hub/MWRRI plans as opposed to the Chicago to Bismarck or Houston to LA routes.

I am assuming that the potential new downtown Columbus station would be west of Neil/south of Goodale Connector?? Is it a possibility to remove freight traffic from that area if a passenger station were to be placed there? Just curious as to what infrastructure improvements would be necessary to place a station in that location.

Not sure, the Dispatch publishes a separate insert for each region of central Ohio. The article I posted was from the Licking County insert and I assume the AAO letter was in the Gahanna insert.

Rail commission eyes old Newark station as stop along rail hub Sunday, October 14, 2007 LORI WINCE ThisWeek Staff Writer Newark could become part of a passenger and freight rail line running from Pittsburgh to Columbus if planners can find funding to begin the project. "We're working with staff in the governor's office on the next steps," said Stu Nicholson, public-information office for the Ohio Rail Development Commission. Nicholson said the commission paid for two economic impact studies on the "Ohio Rail Hub," which could include train stations in Newark, Steubenville, Columbus, Cleveland, Galion, Springfield, Dayton, Middletown and Cincinnati. It includes provisions for passenger and freight service. Stephen Fowler, Newark's economic development director, said the project is different from a regular commuter train, which has several trains running back and forth between a series of stops. This train between Pittsburgh and Columbus would bring passengers to and from Ohio. Fowler said Newark is interested in the "$3-billion in development activity near stations," which could benefit the city and its train-station location. He said train stations along lines of this sort often have "transit-oriented development" nearby, including housing, retail and other mixed-use developments. Newark could be one of the only train stops between Pittsburgh and Columbus, which has Fowler and others wondering where the best location for a train station would be. The Evans Foundation currently is housed at the old Pennsylvania Railroad station at 25 E. Walnut St. in downtown Newark. That is listed as a potential stop in the Pittsburgh-Columbus line. But Sarah Wallace, president of the foundation, said she is not familiar with the project. Fowler said city officials have to consider several factors before determining where the best stop for the train would be. He said he is not sure if foundation owners would want the building to become a train stop, and he is not sure if the building itself would be appropriate for a train stop. The trains that would operate in the Ohio hub would be "modern, fast, convenient and comfortable, with the on-board amenities that help people relax or do business," information from the rail commission states. Fowler said the Pennsylvania Railroad station was built in a different time for a different type of train. Nicholson said the line could have six to eight trains running daily at 110 miles per hour. Nicholson said federal funding may become available for rail, and the Ohio Rail Commission currently is trying to solicit support from areas throughout the state. So far, the commission has letters of support for funding an environmental study for the project from Cincinnati City Council, Cleveland, Columbus City Council, CSX Transportation, Cuyahoga County commissioners, Dayton, Galion City Council, Lima City Council, Mahoning and Trumbull counties, Lorain County commissioners, Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission, Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC), Monroe County Planning Commission, Norfolk Southern Corp., Ohio Contractors Association, Ohio Environmental Council, Ohio Senate, Shaker Heights, Shelby City Council, Sylvania City Council, Toledo City Council, Toldeo-Lucas County Port Authority, Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, University Heights and Vermilion. Gahanna City Council in nearby Franklin County rejected support of the rail-hub study in September. Andrew Brenner, executive director of All Aboard Ohio, said Gahanna council members are missing the importance of the study. "The reality is that the demand for passenger rail is immense -- 80 percent of Ohioans want trains, as reported in the Buckeye State Poll by the Ohio State University Center for Survey Research. ... In every state that has invested in passenger rail, people have responded by riding," he wrote in a letter to ThisWeek. He continued: "To obtain passenger service, the Ohio hub plan moves truck traffic from already congested and worn highways." Information from the rail commission's economic impact study states the Ohio hub could create 16,700 permanent jobs, generate more than $3-billion in development activity near stations, increase land values and create an annual $80-million impact on state tourism by generating 320,000 new overnight trips. Nicholson said Gov. Ted Strickland has "embraced" the project. Now officials need to find funding sources and determine which corridors need to be built first. Nicholson said when studying commuter traffic, the commission found a strong need for commuter service between Zanesville and Columbus. "There's some pretty good traffic through there," he said. The rail hub could engage railroads in existing corridors, benefit freight shipping, increase rail-line capacity and improve infrastructure, Nicholson said. A hub would take eight to 10 years to build, and it would be at least three years before any trains could begin running, he said.

Are any additional public presentations scheduled for the Ohio Hub? I had not heard about the Gahanna presentation, but would like to attend some central Ohio presentations if there are more currently scheduled.

Council: City won't support rail-hub study Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2007 By TARA STUBBS-FIGURSKI Enterprise Staff Writer Gahanna City Council voted 4-3 Monday night to reject a request to pass a resolution of support for an Ohio Rail Hub study. The Ohio Rail Commission requested that Gahanna join 25 Ohio communities and organizations in supporting the federal funding of a rail environmental-impact study. The proposed plan includes a 1,244-mile intercity/interstate passenger rail service with 44 stations. Columbus is projected to be the second major hub. Council member John McAlister, who voted against the resolution, asked council members to consider railroad company profits before making a decision. He said the price of railroad stock has increased consistently for the past five years. "The railroad is not asking for this feasibility study," he said. "Government would be funding something that railroad has not asked." Council member Nick Hogan said he was concerned about the lack of freight-rail discussion. "There are still people out there wanting to push light rail," he said. "If there really was a market for it, it would already exist." Council member Tom Kneeland said there is an economic necessity for freight rail, and he doesn't believe freight rail will take precedence. The government helped supply funding for the original railroads and that project failed, according to council member Nancy McGregor. She said government should not provide more funding. Council member Tom Evers said although at some point, the federal government provided land grants for the railroad, the government consistently funds highway construction with the gas tax. "Look at other transportation infrastructure, highway or aviation; (the government) continues to invest in that infrastructure," Evers said. Evers said the price of oil and gas continues to rise and rail is a more economic and environmentally safe way to move freight and people. The highways are at capacity, council member Debra Payne said. The study would look at alternative ways of moving people or freight, she said. Council president Shane Ewald, who is on the tax incentive board, said he knows one Gahanna company that came to the city to look for freight rail. He would support the resolution because rail is important to businesses in Gahanna, Ewald said. Kneeland, McGregor, Hogan and McAlister voted against the resolution. Payne, Evers and Ewald voted for it. I don’t get Gahanna at all and some of the comments made by the council members. If rail stock has increased over the past five years, wouldn’t that mean the demand for rail services has increased? And while the Ohio Hub is primarily geared for passengers, it also increases capacity of the rail lines to improve freight operations. Hence the support from NS and CSX! And the comment about a “market for light rail” – I do not understand why rail transportation cannot receive subsidies or must be profitable when no other form of public transportation is profitable and receives billions in subsidies.

It would be curious to see the new ODOT administrations view on possible PEIS funding for the Ohio Hub given some recent comments about the Department becoming more "multi-modal." This would be a perfect opportunity to show that new direction. As for cities funding a portion, it may be likely that they would not be willing/capable of funding an study. I was just thinking since station "locating" studies are part of the cost, any contribution by cities could be earmarked for this portion of the study. MPO funding could also be sought for this portion. The example I have is for Columbus to partner with MORPC, Columbus Convention Center, Port Columbus, and Nationwide to fund a station location study. As for ODOT funding, wasn't ODOT (federal planning dollars) funding used on the feasibility studies? Are these funds still available and/or why couldn't they be used for a PEIS?

Absolutely, if other states would chip in (as they should), the costs would be lessened to a degree for Ohio. Since the Ohio Hub would primarily serve Ohio residents, the state of Ohio or Ohio cities should kick in the majority of the funding. I'm not as familiar with ODOD funding as I am ODOT funding, but doesn't ODOD have programs available to fund at least a portion of these studies?

KJP - thanks for the information on funding for HSR plans. One concern I have is that most of the above studies were funded during a time of less a crunch on transportation dollars. The second concern is that federal earmarks seem to be taboo - especially when it comes to transportation projects. In my mind, the Ohio Hub is deserving of an earmark (especially considering other projects that have no chance of being constructed get earmarks). I guess my question was has a private-public approach been explored? Possibly funding the PEIS with a combination of funds from public sources (state, cities served by the plan, MPOs) and private sources (rail companies, port authorities, airports). Overall, I'd just like to see the preliminary phases in place sooner rather than later.