KJP

I love the quotes from Eugene Skoropkowski in California. I wonder how many roads in Wyoming would be "profitable"? _________________ Some members of Congress press on with their own versions of Amtrak reform legislation and anti-Amtrak rhetoric. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) has introduced H.R. 4214, the “Reforming Amtrak’s Inefficient Lines (RAIL) Act,” described as “a bill designed to cut Amtrak’s operating costs by eliminating money-losing routes and services . . . part of [my] effort to trim the nation’s fiscal burden by eliminating or significantly reducing wasteful and inefficient government programs that burden American taxpayers. . . . “Congress has a duty to be responsible with taxpayer money. If we continue to spend it to subsidize services that do not operate efficiently, we are giving the taxpayers a raw deal. Instead, we should lessen the burden on taxpayers by reducing or eliminating wasteful and inefficient government spending. One way we can do this is by eliminating routes and services on which Amtrak consistently loses money.” The RAIL Act, which is co-sponsored by Reps. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) calls for discontinuing service on the Southwest Chief, California Zephyr, Empire Builder, Coast Starlight, and Silver Star; discontinuing food and beverage service “unless revenues from the service exceed its cost, including labor,” and eliminating sleeper cars, dining cars, lounge seating, checked baggage service, and onboard entertainment. Sessions singled out these trains and services for discontinuance based on an October 2004 Amtrak Monthly Performance Report and a recent U.S. DOT Inspector General report on onboard services costs of long-distance trains. Sessions’ announcement prompted this strong response from Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Managing Director Gene Skorowposki, who runs one of the most successful intercity passenger rail services in the U.S.: “Let’s find a Congressional sponsor to introduce the ‘Reforming the Highway System’s Inefficient Roads Act’ to rip up the roads that don’t make money, or are not jammed with traffic, since they are obviously not needed, and the ‘Reforming the Airlines Inefficient Service Operations Act’ so we can find out what happened to the $15 billion [Congress] gave the airlines last year, close those inefficient money-losing airports, and get rid of the inefficient airlines. Let all [in Congress] who want to eliminate Amtrak service to their districts come forward and go on record with what Amtrak services they want to take away from their constituents. Do you want to bet if this will ever happen?” Skoropowski, who has spent more than 30 years in passenger railroading and who is this year’s recipient of Railway Age’s W. Graham Claytor Award for Distinguished Service to Passenger Transportation, provided a laundry list of the various efforts on the part of the federal government to reinvent Amtrak in the past few years: “We had the ‘run it like a business’ directives, which [won’t work] because of federally imposed requirements normal businesses would never be required to follow. Then we had the ‘glidepath to self-sufficiency,’ whereby [gradually eliminating] Amtrak’s operating subsidy would be supplanted with the provision of adequate federal capital funding—which was never provided. Then we had the ‘Amtrak’s business model is flawed’ argument, as if there is no other creature of government with any flaws. Now we have ‘efficient operation of the business’ legislation proposed, which miraculously will give us a ‘functioning business that is profitable,’ just like all the other ‘businesses’ created by legislation.” “It takes financial resources to accomplish any successful business, public or private,” said Skoropowski. “The U.S. DOT loves to point to ‘California’s success’ [with intercity passenger rail]. Yes, but it happened because California voters provided billions of dollars of state capital funding 15 years ago, and it took that long to get where we are today. Even California cannot continue to invest 100% state capital dollars in its passenger rail program. We need a federal partner, and we need Amtrak. The bottom line is that ‘success’ comes when a large investment of capital funding is made. The Northeast Corridor has had a partial investment, and the rest of the country not much else besides rolling stock—and even that is now 15 or more years old. What do we need to do to get the attention of Congress and get them to make the right decisions?”

He's not psyched about the Innerbelt, period. He needs to hear that the southern alignment would improve the chances for the Opportunity Corridor by allowing ODOT land to be sold (generating $40 million to $100 million) and the city to raise significant revenues from its (The Mother Of All TIFs?) return to the tax duplicate.

^Thanks for the description.

Sounds good. I hope they turn out. Try contacting Tom Yablonski to see what he says about five noisy lanes of the Innerbelt moved immediately across the street from Jacobs Field. It would be relocated close enough to Carnegie that it would require the demolition of Tri-C's headquarters.

I was just looking through Frank Jackson's multi-page manifesto earlier today, and saw the only reference to transit was to designate a liaison in the city administration to work with RTA on promoting development along the Euclid Corridor. That's it. Calabrese is a details man who focuses on operations, not capital expansion. He's said in the past that RTA should take on only one or two major capital expansion projects at a time. However, I've not heard what's next after Euclid Corridor. I would have thought RTA would be starting about now to ramp up activity for that next project, whatever it might be, given the time it takes to undertake preliminary engineering, environmental impact studies, securing federal approvals and funding, and finally, construction.

I got interesting tour today of the Central Interchange area by a public official who I will not name, since I'm not sure he wants me to use it. However, here's a couple of things I learned and don't mind saying before writing about it in an article (cuz it's more important that these developments get publicized -- not who publicizes them).... > At the east side of the Cuyahoga Valley, there's a "Western Reserve fireman's museum" in the old, dirty sandstone building at the triangular corner of the Hope Memorial Bridge and the east approach to what was the Central Viaduct. The curators of that musuem have some pretty impressive plans for developing that musuem -- which was a central receiving point for citywide fire alarm call boxes. The dispatching control panel in that building is an amazing piece of brasswork and cannot be replicated anywhere else. The new bridge ODOT proposes to build for westbound traffic only would come up to within perhaps 10 feet of the south side of that building, and quash the musuem's plans for developing that site. > At the west end of the Cuyahoga Valley, the massive, concrete cold storage building that's on the north side of the existing viaduct also has a development plan. Its owner was told early on by ODOT in the Innerbelt process that there were no plans that would affect his building. So, he has proceeded to secure financing to convert the cold storage building into more than 300 housing units. Now, ODOT is telling him that the new westbound-only bridge would require demolition of the cold storage building. The building's owner is appealing for help from local Congressfolk -- he initially wrote to Kucinich, but learned that district lines were redrawn and is now in Tubbs-Jones' district. So he is appealing for help from her. So much for ODOT saying that their plans for the Innerbelt would respect the memorandum of understanding between the city and ODOT: that the project will leave the city no worse off than before. It appears the only option to respect that memorandum is to relocate the Innerbelt's Central Viaduct on a new bridge south of the existing one.

Good question. Actually, the State Street tunnel is pretty much one long station platform, so the gold line trains could probably stop anywhere along it. I also like the pedestrian tunnels to the Blue Line, even though they are claustrophobia inducing. They can be very helpful, especially in winter. Back to Euclid Corridor......

That's right. Thanks for reminding me. It is a Metra route being considered for the "outer loop" but I believe the operative term for it is the STAR line.... Now, back to Cleveland the Euclid Corridor..........

We are too late. And, further increases in costs could doom the project. The Federal Transit Administration is watching this project closely. In Chicago, some refer to the Outer Loop as the Circle Line, but I understand there's a third-tier looping transit route being considered, and that's probably what you're referring to. I couldn't find any maps of that third-tier vision, but here's a map of the proposed Circle Line, shown in yellow below, that would be an expansion of the elevated railway system, linking the various radial el lines, plus the Metra suburban commuter rail lines....

And that's the problem. Our choices are between nothing and, "not bad." We need to be better than that. By the way, does anyone really have their druthers? If so, where can I buy them?

There are places where BRT has caused development, however. One that immediately comes to mind is Ottawa Transitway. One ride on it will show you why -- it is a totally dedicated roadway built only for buses. Some of it is on bridges. Some of it is in a long cut, dug out of rock, with dual-level stations. The density along it is pretty impressive and so was the ridership that I saw -- standing room-only articulated buses at midday. However, there is still a debate as to whether it should have been light rail, or should still be converted to light rail. Here's a link to an article about that debate... http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_otw001.htm Or this article.... http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_brt003.htm Here's some pictures of Ottawa's Transitway.... By the way, there have been renderings of the Euclid Corridor. Here are a few..... These and other images are available at: http://euclidtransit.org/rapid_transit_system/design_engineering.asp It takes a few seconds for all the images to appear on the page.

^Thank you! I couldn't have said it any better myself, even though I've made numerous attempt over the years. Trying to make transit more like cars causes it fail at both.

Ah.

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but I'll ask anyway. Frequently when I post a message, I get a message saying I've already posted it. Problem is, I haven't. I'm not double-clicking. Usually, I get the error message when my post doesn't appear right away. Sometimes, when I get that message, I'll have to click "preview" first, then click "post." But that doesn't always work either. And, other times, when I get the error message and I go back, all of my text is gone. Very frustrating....

Yes, I cover City Hall. I haven't heard her talk about it as part of a general marketing campaign. I know she's said it to Office Max and other specific companies. But unless she's planning to contact every company in the U.S. (and even overseas), a general marketing campaign is probably a better idea.

Nah. Besides, I considered 1,000 was worth celebrating more. Or was it when I reached Key Tower status?

^Sounds like that ought to be advertised more!

That's fine. By the way, the Brooklyn Sun Journal was able to also fit a color satellite view of the Inner Belt bridge plus some lines and data I added to indicate the routing for the new bridge on the southern alignment. I'll post that view when I get home later tonight.

One drawing card for the Hudson's site is that it is in a state renaissance zone, which waives most taxes for up to 12 years. Jackson said the city would prefer as many office personnel on the site as possible because it can collect city income tax from future workers. One Kennedy Square also is in a renaissance zone. This might have been a factor, as noted in the article. I, too, believe there's some booming local companies that we can draw to the urban core. Progressive might be one of them (as an expansion, not a relocation). Perhaps there are younger, growing companies locally that can be offered assistance to consolidate their local offices or join the big time by opening up a significant presence downtown.

I know, but that's not what I'm saying. What happened to cause that many jobs to move to downtown Detroit?

Put a parking deck on those lots, and develop the left over land. God I hate parking lots!

I count 8,600 -- not including the 200 new-hires per month at Rock Financial. Funny how we in Cleveland are happy about the 10-50 tech jobs we're drawing every few weeks or so from the suburbs to downtown. I'll take 'em, but what is Detroit doing to bring 'em en masse to the big bad city?

Thanks. But that article probably belongs in "Grander Vision for the Inner Belt" rather than here. If you want to post it there, that's cool with me. But I won't post my own articles on this forum. It's a little too much "Terrell Owens" syndrome for me!

Probably not until Phase 7. Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (of Toledo) and Congressman Sherrod Brown (Avon Lake) are the backers of this. That should tell you geographically where this thing may be headed. He rebuilt his political career by getting trains out of Lakewood, Rocky River and Bay Village. To him, supporting commuter rail through those same communities would be going back on his word and going against people's wishes. Kucinich painted the railroad as the source of late-night horns, dust at all hours, noise, blocked crossings, threats to children walking to school (Lakewood uses no school buses), a destroyer of neighborhoods, etc. etc. He so demonized the railroad that I don't think he feels he could explain why he would be supporting commuter rail and not come across as blatantly two-faced. To quote him: "I support commuter rail, just not on this route." Problem is, the Cleveland-Lorain route has the highest ridership potential and economic feasibility of any proposed commuter rail corridor in Northeast Ohio. On that score, he shouldn't support commuter rail on any route. After all, ridership and feasibility are the only criterion which matter. All the other issues he apparently has about commuter rail can be dealt with. In other words, he already is being two-faced. In reality, if a demonstration commuter rail project is offered, all he needs to say is "I'll be scrutinizing this carefully to see if the positive impacts outweigh the negative ones and then determine if the rail service should be continued." But, to get him to say that, someone needs to go to his base of support (environmentalists, poor urbanites seeking suburban jobs, etc.). They need to convince Kucinich to at least get out of the way.

Regional (also commuter) rail can be used as "a foot in the door" for the Ohio Hub, since defeating capital cost barriers for one can be used to defeat barriers for the other. And, all this depends on what is defined as "the region." Typically, commuter rail and regional rail are interchangeable terms. Sometimes the same can be said for regional rail and intercity rail. The difference between intercity rail and commuter rail is the type of traveler the service is designed for. Commuter rail typically has these characteristics: + Route length of 20-75 miles, often within a single metro area; + A dominant central business district at one end with either no major CBD, or at most a secondary CBD, at the other end; + Makes station stops every 2-15 miles; + Offers trains scheduled primarily during the peak hours for work trips; + Offers discounted multiple-ride fares/tickets, such as weekly or monthly passes, in addition to single-ride fares/tickets. Intercity rail typically has these characteristics: + Route length of 60 miles+ between two or more metro areas; + Offers trains scheduled at various times throughout the day, though some may be during peak hours that attract work trips; + Makes station stops every 10-50 miles; + Has on-board food service, given the total route distance and end-to-end travel time (though some longer commuter services do as well); + Tends offer different classes of on-board service (economy class, first/business class, etc. though some longer commuter services do as well); + Doesn't usually offer discounted multiple-ride fares/tickets, but some intercity trains do. There are routes where the differences between intercity and commuter services are hard to see, such as between Los Angeles and San Diego. In fact, Amtrak honors Metrolink and Coaster commuter rail tickets on its intercity trains, and vice-versa. The Dayton-Cincinnati portion of the 3-C Corridor could fall into that category, as might much of the Cleveland - Youngstown - Pittsburgh corridor.