Boreal,

 

There hasn't been a site chosen yet for a new Columbus "Union Station", but it will likely not be where the old Union Station was located, as the area that has developed around that site has so severly narrowed the rail corridor as to make it difficult, if not impossible to even stop a passenger train without blocking two major rail junctions.

 

A possible site could be a little further west in the Arena District where Neal Avenue crosses under the railroad tracks. There is more room and it would actually be closer to many destination points....Nationwide Arena, the new Huntington Park for the Columbus Clippers, etc.

 

 

Thanks, Noozer.  Funny is that I was just at the Nationwide Arena parking lot on business a week ago.  Would have been nice to take a train, of course!

That's a shame about the narrowing of the rail corridor.  "Union Station" needs to be located in a spot thats easy to serve with other forms of rail as well (i.e. the streetcar and any future light rail). 

 

I assume it will be running along one or more of the major highway corridors so how about using the 70/71 split caps as a right of way?  There are cross streets so it might take an expensive elevated system though.  hrmmm.

 

I suppose it could also slice down 3rd or 4th street kinda like the Amtrak Coaster does in San Diego.  Then City Center could be the "Union Station".

Street-running works for streetcars and light rail, but it's hell to put a full-sized passenger train on such a corridors, not to mention that the Federal Railroad Administration probably wouldn't allow it.  Using Interstate rights-of-way is also problematic, since they're not designed to handle the weight and pounding of trains and bridge clearances also present a problem.  That's why the Hub plan is based on using existing railroad rights-of-way.... the corridor is already defined and the land is there to use to put in new or extra track where needed, which is far more cost-effective.

 

But I'm with ya on how cool it would be to resurrect Union Station.  I think the surviving "Arch" from the station should be incorporated into the design of whatever structure takes its place.

A possible site could be a little further west in the Arena District where Neal Avenue crosses under the railroad tracks. There is more room and it would actually be closer to many destination points....Nationwide Arena, the new Huntington Park for the Columbus Clippers, etc.

 

No offense to Columbus sports fans, but if I'm taking a train to Columbus, it's not going to be for purposes of attending a sporting event. They are of a limited schedule, and even if I am interested in attending a Columbus sporting event, the games end late enough on weekdays that I probably wouldn't be able to take a train home.

 

As you know, the reasons why people take the train (in any market) is to visit family/friends, for business, to go to/from a college or university and also for purposes of tourism. A station near the arena (if hotels are adjacent) would satisfy the latter market. But a station closely integrated with the primary busy urban travel corridors (ie: High Street or even Broad Street) that get you to off-rail destinations (central business district, state offices, OSU, etc) that are unique in Ohio is the goal. That's my humble opinion from someone who doesn't live in Columbus but visits it frequently. All I ask from a train station's location and connectivity is that it makes it easy for me to get to the places that have the highest density of unique destination-points that see the greatest amount of out-of-town visitors on a day-in and day-out basis.

It's definitely a difficult excercise and is really a testiment to how quickly we need to start planning these systems if only to call "dibs" on the best corridors.  Things are only going to get harder as land downtown gets developed, and along with that comes a more expensive and less functional system.

 

It's a strange dynamic to watch the Arena Distict become our 2nd downtown, while we're still trying to rebuild our actual downtown.  I just wish there was a way to allow City Center to become the transit hub, but it doesn't look like that's feasible.  While we could have streetcars and light rail running along High, Broad, 3rd, and 4th, you wouldn't be able to transfer to the Ohio Hub system without taking another streetcar transfer (potentially the confusing "Z line").

As you know, the reasons why people take the train (in any market) is to visit family/friends, for business, to go to/from a college or university and also for purposes of tourism. A station near the arena (if hotels are adjacent) would satisfy the latter market. But a station closely integrated with the primary busy urban travel corridors (ie: High Street or even Broad Street) that get you to off-rail destinations (central business district, state offices, OSU, etc) that are unique in Ohio is the goal. That's my humble opinion from someone who doesn't live in Columbus but visits it frequently. All I ask from a train station's location and connectivity is that it makes it easy for me to get to the places that have the highest density of unique destination-points that see the greatest amount of out-of-town visitors on a day-in and day-out basis.

I walked from the Arena parking lot to the State Capitol.  It was a wee bit on the long side.  It was a beautiful day and I didn't mind it.  If I had to do it often it would be a chore.  I have no idea how to get the tracks another ten blocks to the south.  Maybe close a surface street.  That won't be popular.  That leaves us with circulator buses, I suppose

You nailed it Brewmaster!  That's why a high-level environmental impact study of the Ohio Hub is needed: so rail corridors can be preserved and (along with it) preserve the opportunity to build not only the rail service but the facilities it would serve such as train stations and/or intermodal transportation hubs.

 

Without a document in place that does this, corridors will continue to be encroached upon to the point where they are severely restricted or unusable. The former site of Columbus' Union Station is a prime example.

 

BTW: KJP.... I'd bet you'd feel differently if the Columbus Clippers were the Triple-A farm team for the Indians.  Actually, an Arena District location would not be that far away from the High Street Corridor as to make it inconvenient or unable to create intermodal connections with COTA, or the planned Downtown Streetcar, as well as potential commuter rail or light rail.  The site was a rail yard to begin with. 

Not really. I've been to a couple of Indians minor league games (Lake County Captains and Akron Aeros), but moreso to say that I've done it and to see their new stadiums.

 

I don't understand how or why completing an environmental impact study keeps development from encroaching on a right of way. Does it create a legal no-build zone of some sort? I ask this because I'm aware that some state agencies have acquired railroad right of way without first doing environmental impact analyses. Wouldn't this (or acquiring easements along rights of way) give the state agency a stronger legal say in what can or can't be built near a railroad right of way? Please excuse my ignorance on this issue.

It gives the state a bonafide, definitive plan by which the Ohio Rail Development Commission can respond to any kind of competing or encroaching interest.... commercial development, highways, bike trails, etc.  Right now, the Ohio Hub is (in the eyes of these interests) an "if" and that gives the ORDC no solid ground upon which to preserve that portion of a right of way that someone else may want either in its entirety or to share.

 

Having a completed and approved environmental impact study allows the state to say with some certainty that a rail corridor has a higher and better use.... namely, for passenger rail and/or expanding the corridor to handle more freight rail traffic.  I wouldn't call it a "no build zone" but it creates a basis upon which ORDC can step in and forestall the encroachment upon or destruction of critical rail right-of-way.  It enables the state to establish ground rules for development.  Otherwise you wind up wishing we still had this stretch of railroad track or that former railroad station site that got bulldozed over and had a suburb built over it. 

 

Plus, if federal funds are to be pursued to build the Ohio Hub, or even the West Shore Corridor, environmental impact studies are required by the FRA.  I don't see either of these projects getting done without a significant federal infusion of $$$$ so the studies must be done. 

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.

Might ORDC instead seek a tiered EIS like what North Carolina did? It appears their approach was less expensive, and completion of the first tier allowed them to tap some existing federal funding resources (enhancement, CMAQ/STP and even some National Highway System funds for installation of an advanced traffic control system).

KJP..... As a matter of fact, North Carolina's approach is one that is recommended by the FRA, as are the plans put together by the states of Virginia and California. What's interesting is that in conversations I've had with Gene Skoropowski of California's Capital Corridors commuter system, he is a professed admirer of Ohio's plans and says Ohio's approach to developing passenger rail incrementally to a 110-mph system is a good plan. 

 

One option also being looked at is making the Ohio Hub part of the STIP (State Transportation Improvement Plan), which may make it easier to fund things like a high-level EIS.

 

tt342998..... the possibility of moving freight traffic out of that immediate area is something that is on the table as an option, as is the possibility of creating "flyover" tracks to eliminate some of the existing rail junctions (a nice technical term for "bottlenecks").  It's not a new idea.  COTA proposed a similar solution when it still had a light rail plan in active development.  Again, all of this is somet5hing that can be explored in a high-level environmental impact study, since part of the study begins to nail down such details as well as literally the numbers of miles of rails, passing sidings, new signals, grade crossing improvements, grade separtion, etc that would be needed for each corridor.

he is a professed admirer of Ohio's plans and says Ohio's approach to developing passenger rail incrementally to a 110-mph system is a good plan.

 

As am I. There are differing philosophies as to how to implement improvements incrementally, however. One version seems to have worked for most states -- call it baby steps, bits and pieces, or whatever. But the EIS, in whatever form, is certainly needed regardless of which philosophy is embraced.

 

One option also being looked at is making the Ohio Hub part of the STIP (State Transportation Improvement Plan), which may make it easier to fund things like a high-level EIS.

 

I don't know if NCDOT did that with its rail plans (I've been researching them lately and will give a presentation at the All Aboard Ohio meeting Saturday about how they got their program underway -- so I'm on a bit of a NCDOT kick right now). But after they completed their $900,000 Tier I EIS, NCDOT signed a memorandum of understanding with the state-owned North Carolina Railroad, Federal Railroad Administration and the Federal Highway Administration (of all agencies!) for their multi-year North Carolina Railroad Improvement Project. NCDOT was able to use lease revenues from the NCRR to leverage federal funds (CMAQ, Enhancement, Secs. 1010, 1036  and 1103c, and even National Highway System). The NHS funds were used to add a $12 million Centralized Traffic Control signaling system from Cary to Greensboro to boost passenger train speeds from 59 to 79 mph. Quite innovative and aggressive, those Tar Heels!

National HIGHWAY System funds for a $12 mil CTC RAILROAD system??!!! Bolsheviks!! :wink:

These technical issues make for good discussion, but what gets lost in all of these "inside baseball" style discussions is that we still do not have a solid, well-funded federal program that is necessary if any of these state plans are to grow and build out to their best possible scenario.

 

This is an election year, and next year is an even bigger one.  What the advocacy community needs to be doing, while keeping the technical dsicussions alive, is to focus more on making the development of more and better passenger rail service (as well as increasing freight rail capacity) a major campaign issue.  What could be more major than the impact our underdeveloped rail systems are having on the rest of our transportation infrastructure?

 

And yet I see little or nothing coming from national organizations like the National Association of Railroad Passengers, the Rail Users Network, States for Passenger Rail or advocacy groups at the state and local level as far as political activism.  Who is bringing up the issue or questions as political candidates roam the country seeking your votes?  Ohio is like a revolving door for Presidential candidates on almost a weekly basis, so why are they not be pressed to take a stand on passenger rail or the overall need to redevelop our rail corridors?

 

This is what advocacy should be all about?  All the other discussions are a moot point if we don't get legislation passed that supports rail development or the leadership in the Executive Branch to push it as policy.

 

Without this, the Ohio Hub will never be fully realized, nor will the West Shore commuter rail plan or any other major rail plan in Ohio or the Midwest. We may be able to cobble together funding to advance planning like a PEIS for the Ohio Hub.... and we need to do so.  But the larger task is getting off our behinds and ask anyone running for office at the state or federal level this question: What are you doing or do you propose doing to fully fund the critical need to rebuild our railroad systems and fund more and better passenger rail?

 

It needs to be asked and asked often, and at every campaign stop or political rally or candidate fund-raiser. 

 

The reason Governor Strickland embraced the Ohio Hub Plan during the gubernatorial campaign is that the questions were asked and campaign staff then started asking for copies of the Hub Plan and began briefing him. The fact he took a stand on rail immediately set him apart from Blackwell, who BTW was asked about the Ohio Hub and said "rail isn't even on my radar".  Whose vote do you think Strickland got?

 

 

The Q&A will continue with candidates. But I'm not holding my breath on their fiscal response. In 1988, I wrote an op-ed for the Plain Dealer (the first time I got paid for writing anything!) about the Ampenny proposal to dedicate one cent of gas tax to Amtrak capital. That was one of, if not the first proposal put before Congress for a long-term passenger rail development fund. Nearly 20 years later, we've seen intercity passenger rail get left out of ISTEA, and the thud of proposals like ARRIVE-21, RIDE-21 and others.

 

A federal capital program of some meaningful size to make a dent in the $60 billion backlog of unfunded projects will become law someday. I might even live to see it.

 

Or we could make do with the tools already at our disposal like every other state with a passenger rail program. It's slower and not as sexy, but it's movement.

No question we have to work with the tools we've got, but it cannot be done without pushing for a strong federal funding program. Former Amtrak Reform Council member Jim Coston makes a good argument that it is the obligation of the federal government to do for rail what it has done for highways and aviation under the provision in the U.S. Constitution that speaks to interstate commerce.

 

No one suggests that a single federal program will have the $$$$ to single-handledly fix a long-standing problem.  But the legislation that created the Interstate Highway System didn't start with all the money it needed either.

 

My point is that we're kidding ourselves by thinking the current toolbox we have is in any way adequate for the mobility challenges we face. It simply is not enough to meet the demand, especially given the additional pressures of global warming, air quality and the need to grow the economy.  If we settle for less, less is what we get.

 

As long as politicians in Washington and in our own Statehouse believe we can somehow amble along toward better passenger & freight rail with tiny pots of money here and there, they will have no reason or motivation to enact any meaningful change.

 

The "Q&A" hasn't even begun.  And it won't get started until advocates like us dispense with this go-along-to-get-by mindset and start rattling some cages.  If all of the people who post on the Transportation page on UrbanOhio are as passionate as they profess about rail and mass transportation, they surely shouldn't be satisfied with the status quo.  Status quo means no change.  If we settle for that, we deserve what we get in return.

Yep.

I hear you too. I'm all in favor of "rattling some cages" Hell I wanna rattle ALL the cages!!

Rattle away and don't let up!

Commentary

Big dreamer's biggest dream was re-invent of rail system

By James Cummings

 

Staff Writer

 

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

 

Last week I learned that the dreams of Tom Stolz, the biggest dreamer I ever met, are still carrying on nearly 15 years after his death.

 

Stolz, a Washington Twp. nurseryman and philanthropist, dreamed of a YMCA in Washington Twp., so in the late 1970s he donated the land at 845 W. Centerville Road that later became the Washington Twp. Recreation Center.

 

Read more at:

 

Find this article at:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/o/content/oh/story/opinions/columns/2007/10/23/ddn102407cummings.html 

 

 

Another opinion.... re: Gahanna City Council's recent vote on supporting the Ohio Hub.... Way to go Andrew B !  :clap:

 

Letters

This Week Community News / Gahanna Edition

Council isn't grasping need for a rail-hub study

 

Thursday, October 18, 2007

 

Gahanna City Council recently voted to reject a resolution of support for the Ohio Rail Hub passenger and freight rail plan. The Ohio hub, now about 6 years old in planning, would provide passenger rail service between Columbus, Cincinnati and Cleveland, terminating at the international connections of Cleveland Hopkins Airport.

 

We suggest that council has spoken; members simply did not answer the correct question. The vote was not about the merits or demerits of passenger rail for Ohio; it was a vote to continue the planning process. The Ohio Rail Development Commission would not ask for major capital expenditures if there was not a need. The Ohio hub plan also has been studied by two teams of experts finding that it would bring more than $9-billion in development to Ohio -- a return on investment of more than 2-to-1. The need already has been determined by this report, which is available at the Ohio hub Web site. Yet anyone driving in today's environment already knows the need: gas prices and time wasted driving between the major Ohio cities.

 

Ohio voters want passenger rail. There are two matters to resolve: the low return on investment for passenger rail projects and the business case for the movement of freight. The rail commission knows the railroad companies will not accept any plan that reduces or diminishes freight capacity. That is why further analysis is needed. This is also why Monday's vote indicated that there is still a lack of understanding about the realities of the so-called "transportation marketplace."

 

Perhaps the best example is Councilman Nick Hogan's assertion that "if there was really a market for it, (passenger rail), it would already exist." We contend that government is heavily involved in this funding of all forms of transportation, except for rail infrastructure. This has distorted the transportation "marketplace."

 

The reality is that the demand for passenger rail is immense: 80 percent of Ohioans want passenger trains, as reported in the Buckeye State Poll by the Ohio State University Center for Survey Research. The plan has support from CSX and Norfolk Southern -- Ohio's two major rail carriers. In every state that has invested in passenger rail, people have responded by riding: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York, Mane, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington, Oregon and California.

 

There is also a benefit to Gahanna and the trucking industry. To obtain passenger service, the Ohio hub plan moves truck traffic from already congested and worn highways.

 

Gahanna already has implemented some controversial projects; among them are Creekwalk and Creekside. Regardless of the position of council at the time, the planning process was an important part of why these projects enjoy their current success. The Ohio hub plan is deserving of further study and the city of Gahanna's support.

 

Andrew Bremer

 

Executive Director

 

All Aboard Ohio

 

www.allaboardohio.org

 

http://www.thisweeknews.com/?story=sites/thisweeknews/101807/RockyFork/News/101807-News-437200.html&sec=gahanna&tab=tab1

Just got word that U.S. Senate Bill 294 (The Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act) passed by a margin of 70 to 22.  :clap:

 

This is the bill that would both establish a funding mechanism for development of state-generated passenger rail corridor plans like The Ohio Hub, as well as establish a five-year funding & management reform plan for Amtrak.

 

I'm told it may be early 2008 before a companion bill emerges from the U.S. House.  There are several options being looked at, including a matching funds program similar to S-294 or possibly a bill that would allow states to issues bonds to support passenger rail projects.

 

The good news is that we have a strong Ohio presence on two of the key House Committees (Transportation & Infrastructure: Space, Tubbs-Jones and LaTourette) and (Appropriations: Kaptur, Ryan, Regula and Hobson).

 

Passage of S-294 is a big victory to savor, but there is clearly much more to do.

Now, we need a House bill.  Call your Reps and ask them to co-sponsor a house version of the bill.

 

Now, we need a House bill.  Call your Reps and ask them to co-sponsor a house version of the bill.

 

 

I've said it before: Call the congressman's office, ask for the Aide responsible for issues related to transportation and infrastructure issues. Otherwise, you'll end up talking/leaving a message for the AA or some random intern who never gets the MC's time or knows absolutely nothing on the subject or is unable to comment on the MC's position.

Good advice.

Here's a summary of S-294 from the Environmental Law & Policy Center.

 

 

Senate passes Amtrak reauthorization

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Senate passed an $11.4 billion bill introduced by Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Trent Lott (R-MS) to fully fund Amtrak and bring the passenger rail system into the 21st century.  The Lautenberg-Lott bipartisan plan would authorize infrastructure improvements and the expansion of rail routes into new American towns and cities over the next six years.

 

            “This is a huge victory for anyone who’s tired of sitting in traffic or waiting in airports,” said Lautenberg. “When we give Amtrak the resources it needs, more Americans take the train.  The funding and improvements in our bill will improve Amtrak and make train travel a more attractive option throughout the country.  When travelers choose the energy efficiency of rail over cars and planes, they reduce gridlock, help combat global warming and even reduce our reliance on foreign oil.”

 

            “Preserving national passenger rail service shouldn’t be based on partisan ideology or Amtrak’s profit margins,” Lott said.  “Preserving Amtrak is about ensuring that America has a complete transportation system – one that includes planes, trains, lanes and ports.”

 

            The Lautenberg-Lott legislation would authorize approximately $1.9 billion of federal funds per year for six years for intercity passenger rail. The funds would:

 

·        Provide grants to states so they can start passenger rail service to connect town and cities, increase travel options, and remove cars from the road;

·        Provide Amtrak resources to bring the Northeast Corridor up to a “state-of-good-repair,” to ensure reliable service for New Jersey’s 100,000 rail commuters on that line each day;

·        Put Amtrak on solid financial footing with predictable levels of funding, a debt refinancing plan and a new financial accounting system; and

·        Revitalize Amtrak by requiring it to put in place new quality standards and make fundamental operational reforms to provide the best quality service to its passengers.

 

            For fiscal year 2007, a record 25.8 million passengers rode Amtrak, an increase of 1.5 million passengers over fiscal year 2006.  With the increased congestion in the nation’s airports and on its highways, passenger rail is a vital alternative for intercity travel throughout the country.

 

            Separate Lautenberg-Lott legislation would allow states to issue federal tax credit bonds to raise capital for passenger rail projects.  This legislation was approved by the Senate Finance Committee last month.  It would provide an additional $2.7 billion for rail improvements over three years.

 

Kevin Brubaker

Environmental Law & Policy Center  (www.elpc.org)

35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 673-6500

^THIS IS REALLY EXCITING NEWS!

Don't get too excited yet. We've reached this step several times before in the past 20 years, with the other house of Congress doing nothing. In this latest attempt, the House so far has done nothing. Same thing happened two years ago. The Senate passed a very good bill by a wide margin, but the House took no action on its own bill.

 

So don't get too excited yet. To be sure, the Senate's action is a positive step, but there's a lot more steps left to go.

And that's why we need to hammer on the House so we don't have a repeat of two years ago.  Good point KJP!

If AAO Pres. has his way, this will be priority #1. I'm sure there will be discussions at upcoming board meetings on this.

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.

 

 

Her most recent involvement with rail in Ohio was with the organization for which I work -- All Aboard Ohio. She was an at-large board member, and an active one at that. Sadly, she'll have to resign from the All Aboard Ohio board due to her new appointment. We'll miss her at AAO and welcome her to ORDC.

I think Jolene Molitoris will be an active ORDC Chair.  It seems she really wants to try to get things going with passenger rail.

Just posted on the ORDC website.

 

NEWS

OHIO RAIL

DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

50 W. Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 644-0306 telephone or fax (614) 728-4520

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: November 7, 2007

CONTACT: Stu Nicholson

614-644-0513

 

 

Passing of the Gavel At ORDC Meeting

Former Federal Railroad Administrator Jolene Molitoris Named to Chair

Commission by Governor Strickland

 

(Columbus) ---- The Ohio Rail Development Commission enters a new era at its next

meeting as Dublin, Ohio’s Jolene Molitoris becomes only the second chairperson the

Commission has had in its history and the first woman to be appointed as Commission

chair. Molitoris, appointed last Friday by Governor Ted Strickland, will gavel in her first

meeting:

 

Thursday, November 8th

10:00 AM

at the

Vern Riffe Center for Government & the Arts

77 South High Street, 31st floor

Columbus, Ohio

 

It is not the first time Jolene Molitoris has made history. She was appointed as the first

woman to serve as Federal Railroad Administrator by President Bill Clinton. She

also 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 and a

graduate degree from Case Western Reserve University.

 

Thursday’s meeting will also honor the service of retiring ORDC Chair James Betts,

whose term expired in late October. Mr. Betts, a former Ohio legislator, became ORDC

first Chairman in 1995 when the Commission was first created by the Ohio General

Assembly and helped oversee the State of Ohio’s saving of the Panhandle Line from

being turned to scrap, the growth of a successful grade crossing safety and freight rail

program and development of Ohio’s first statewide passenger rail plan, the Ohio Hub.

 

Jolene Molitoris’ term as ORDC Chair begins as ORDC benefits from an increased

budget that was achieved through the joint efforts of Governor Strickland and the

leadership in the Ohio General Assembly. Governor Strickland has stated that he sees an

important role for rail in growing Ohio’s economy.

 

“To have such a person with the national stature in the transportation community as

Jolene Molitoris to chair the ORDC is truly a great moment for the State of Ohio and for

the advancement of Ohio’s rail industry to further benefit Ohio’s economy and citizens.”,

says ORDC Executive Director Matt Dietrich. “Her appointment is right on track with

Governor Strickland’s transportation goals outlined in his Turn Around Ohio Plan.”

 

(The Ohio Rail Development Commission is an independent agency operating within the

Ohio Department of Transportation. ORDC is responsible for economic development

through the improvement and expansion of passenger and freight rail service, railroad grade

crossing safety and rail travel & tourism issues. For more information about what ORDC

does for Ohio, visit our website at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/)

A little history made today.  Jolene M. Molitoris, the first female to serve as Federal Railroad Administrator also become the first female to Chair the Ohio Rail Development Commission.  :clap:

 

She is already on record at the meeting saying Ohio needs to do all it can to make sure that any Ohio community that wants rail service to move people or freight gets that service.

 

 

From 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. Tuesday (Nov. 20), WCPN 90.3 FM in Cleveland will have a discussion of rail passenger service -- namely the West Shore Corridor project and Ohio Hub.

 

if you are outside the FM radio range of WCPN, you can tune in online at:

http://www.wcpn.org/index.php/WCPN/streaming/

 

Guests will be .....

 

Ken Sislak, All Aboard Ohio's Northeast Director, will be in studio. Yours truly -- Ken Prendergast, Director of Research and Communication -- was recorded on Friday (I hope I made some sense in my rambling).

 

Jolene Molitoris, the new chairperson of the Ohio Rail Development Commission, will be participating by phone.

 

Tune in if you can. If anyone records this, please let me know.

From 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. Tuesday (Nov. 20), WCPN 90.3 FM in Cleveland will have a discussion of rail passenger service -- namely the West Shore Corridor project and Ohio Hub.

...

Tune in if you can. If anyone records this, please let me know.

WCPN now archives "The Sound of Ideas" and other programs, so your rambling will live on forever.  These are great times we are living in! http://wcpn.org/index.php/WCPN/soi/

Just after this morning's program, one of the interviewees told me that all 10 phone lines into the studio were jammed. Several people called me after the show and said they couldn't get through. And e-mails were coming in faster than the show's host could read them. The responses were overwhelmingly positive. The show's host was so impressed with the response that he wants to make the rail/transit issue part of a regular program.

 

Now, our charge is to build upon this.

Great show!  The host even tried to rouse some opposition, but everyone seemed excited and positive.  That's quite a feat!

I thought Patricia Quinn from Maine's "Downeaster" was the icing on the cake.  She really showed that not only will people flock to trains that provide frequent, timely and competitive service, but that the investment in the rail infrastructure and equipment to get the Downeaster rolling and growing is paying off dividends.

 

This gives me hope for the West Shore Corridor and the Ohio Hub.

 

Though it doesn't mention the Ohio Hub by name, this is a huge change in the editorial stance of the Columbus Dispatch.

 

Editorial:

Transportation remix

Nation needs to consider public's changing attitude about travel preferences

Saturday,  November 24, 2007 2:54 AM

Columbus Dispatch

 

The nation's transportation networks aren't entirely in step with travelers' needs and tastes.

 

The collapse of an interstate-highway bridge Aug. 1 in Minneapolis was symptomatic of an excessive focus on building roads and bridges at the expense of necessary maintenance. As airlines suffered from a plague of repeated delays, particularly during the busy summer vacation season, ridership on Amtrak's passenger trains increased. And an express bus service to Indianapolis and Chicago from Columbus that failed to catch on last year and soon was canceled has started up again, this time with a measure of success.

 

Congress and the president, as they consider federal subsidies for various modes of transportation and their infrastructure, have a duty to analyze whether the spending priorities of 10 years ago, before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, should remain in the same order. The systems that Americans used most often to travel from here to there in the last 30 to 40 years of the 20th Century might not be their best choices for this century.

 

As Americans deal with yet another gasoline-price spike, the costs of overdependence on highways and the personal convenience of cars keep rising. Mass transportation, which spreads the expense over more people per vehicle, has become more appealing. On a per-passenger basis, trains use 20 percent less energy than planes and 27 percent less than cars.

 

Read more at:

 

 

http://dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2007/11/24/TRNSPO.ART_ART_11-24-07_A10_AR8I5H9.html?sid=101

^This is a great editorial.  Your initial comments confuse me slightly.  I thought the Dispatch has long supported the Ohio Hub and passenger rail? As I recall, when the 2-C project was killed in 2000, they published a great editorial cartoon that admonished the decision. 

That was under the old regime at the Dispatch.  They've been more than quiet on the subject since they went through a management makeover in 2001-2002.

I saw this today and I noticed that almost all the editorials seemed to be in some way connected to Global Warming.  Who wrote that editorial by the way.  It was not evident to me when I read it in the paper this morning.

The Dispatch, like most papers, has an editorial board.  This could have been written by any one of four or five people on that board, but the important thing is that reprsents an official position of the paper.

I'm jealous

Sounds a little pricey, even for us self-important titans of industry. But British train interests have just thrown an additional $13.5 billion into its side of the already popular Eurostar, which now zips between London and Paris in just two hours and 15 minutes. Launched with appropriate pomp and circumstance three weeks ago, the new, improved Eurostar is 30 minutes faster than Amtrak's Acela, which requires two hours and 45 minutes to ply a similar distance between New York and Washington.

 

This sounds a little too generous to Acela- the distances might be similar as the crow flies, but I'd bet the track distance is significantly longer for the Eurostar because there's an f'ing sea in the way.

Yes. Paris to London as the Eurostar flies is 306 miles (average speed of 122.4 mph). The New York-Washington portion of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor is 226 miles. A more accurate comparison distance-wise is Washington to New Haven, Conn. which is 301 miles. The fastest Acela covers Washington to New Haven in 4 hours and 27 minutes (67.6 mph).

 

As for the columnist's baseless comments on long-distance trains, if he wants to see Amtrak's worst-performing trains on a financial basis, check out the short-distance, state-supported trains -- before the state subsidy is counted.