Asking us to "Just live with the mistake" is a typical settle for satus quo and afraid of change staement. KJP...right on with the counter discussion. It is really unarguable. We cannot continue down this heavy energy dependent money draining transportation system...adding more roads when we cannot maintain what we have..etc..etc..  I shudder to think what this state would look like in 30 years if allowed to just build a road anytime it gets too lazy to walk, ride a bike, or take a bus/train...or forbid we think of another possible way to do something.

 

ODOT: '07 (I am prety positive) Roughly 4 million ALONE in cleaning up Ohio Highways--and such is ongoing. How about the senseless mowing of areas that equate to raking leaves in the middle of a forest! How much is that?

Basically pennies when you look at our annual highway maintenance expenditures.

 

It's one half of one percent of ODOT's budget. I know the highway guys are going to ask -- but how many people are being moved as a result of using the same amount of money for highways vs. rail? That's a civil engineer's or a traffic engineer's answer. I want to ask: what the economic and environmental benefit of one usage of money vs. the other? Is the added incremental spending of $17 million for roads going to create the same benefits as spending the same amount for passenger rail? I can tell you that there has been analyses done on the latter -- that the $17 million per year in spending by the state on 3C will generate $111 million in new economic activity per year.

 

I have not seem a similar analysis done for an amount spent on roads. I doubt there is one. Why? Because ODOT almost NEVER does economic impact studies on a road project. The first one they ever did was the for Inner Belt project in Cleveland in 2005. Road investments are made on the basis of safety, traffic flow and physical condition of the infrastructure, not on economic or environmental benefits.

 

Yet 3C is being held to an incredibly high standard because the metrics being used to determine its value (economic and environmental benefits) don't coincide with those typically used to measure the value of roadway investments. Personally speaking, I think all modal investments from here on out should be based on economic and environmental standards, rather than if we're merely moving more cars around.

^ Does ODOT even conduct an environmental impact statement on road building? I doubt it.

I'd also like to address a few other of the flawed complaints.  I know most folks here probably know these already, but I think they bear reiterating since they do keep coming up.

 

First is the complaint that our cities are so spread out and sprawl-dependent, and without meaningful local transit then long-distance rail is less useful.  Well, how is it any worse than flying?  In fact, with the train stations being much closer to, if not in the heart of downtown core areas, you're more likely to already be at your destination.  If not, well, you'd rent a car or take a cab if you flew in anyway.  It's not like those services won't be available at the train stations.  Comparing taking the train to driving yourself is fair, but it's not the only situation.  If it's too inconvenient to take the train, then don't!  That doesn't mean it won't work for others.  People find a way.  A few years ago I worked on a large construction project in the Dayton area.  Our office and most of the sub-contractors were based here in Cincinnati.  Due to the large number of folks going to and from Cincinnati and the job site, and also because of the sustainability aspects of the project itself, I know the general contractor would've set up a shuttle of some sort to get to and from the Dayton train station. 

 

Another issue is, why would someone go to all the trouble to take the train when it's slower anyway?  Well, the aforementioned scenario is another good example.  Driving time is generally a liability for most companies.  You might be able to get in some time on the phone in the car, but that's not a good thing really, nor is it terribly productive.  On the train you can talk on your phone, work on a laptop, and also look at documents, drawings, reports, whatever.  Your employer would still have to reimburse you for the cost of the train ticket and any other travel accommodations, but they'd have to pay you for mileage if you drove too, and there'd be much less billable time in the car.  Despite the mileage reimbursement, you're still causing wear and tear on your own car by driving. 

 

Another thing people constantly cry about is how long it takes to go between far distant locations.  Like "OMG the train would take SO long to go from New York to Los Angeles, or even to Dallas."  That's NOT what trains are for, those are the kinds of distances that planes make the most sense and always will.  Trains are for going from Cincinnati to Columbus, or from Chicago to St. Louis, or from Milwaukee to Minneapolis.  The argument that the USA is too big and spread out is such ignorant rubbish.  We have plenty of very dense corridors, and even many not quite so dense areas that are still on par with many areas in Europe where trains service is extensive and successful.  It makes just as much sense to take a train from Cincinnati to Chicago as it does to take one from Munich to Berlin.  By the same token, it's just as absurd to take a train from New York to San Francisco as it is to take one from Moscow to Paris.

 

Lastly, this thing about road maintenance and our crumbling infrastructure has to be brought up.  Yes, the railroad network will need maintenance, as do our worsening roads.  The solution to this is not in building more and bigger roads that need another big initial capital outlay and more maintenance later.  I wont say that railroads require less maintenance than roads because I don't have the numbers to back that up, but intuitively that seems to be the case.  High-speed freeways need to be maintained at an exceptional condition otherwise they become dangerous.  Railroads don't get potholes in the winter, nor is plowing snow generally much of an issue.  All that aside, more railroads and alternatives to driving doesn't mean we'll suddenly have existing roads disappear and no longer require maintenance.  However, it means we won't have to widen our existing roads as much, or build new bypasses, or repave them quite as often.  So it's not really a case of reducing our current road burden, but preventing it from growing as much in the future.  That's a good thing.

^ Does ODOT even conduct an environmental impact statement on road building? I doubt it.

 

Yes, they have to if federal funds are used. But to keep this discussion on 3C, I've redirected this discussion to:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7852.msg463977.html#msg463977

National security doesn't get mentioned much as an argument for rail. What happens to the gas-tax-funded highway system when we stop buying gas? Will there be tax increases in other areas to compensate? Will we tax the electricity that recharges your hybrid? The hydrogen? The system will blow a gasket.

 

 

That topic is also discussed over at "Rethinking transport in the USA"...

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7852.msg463977.html#msg463977

3-C's potential riders are more than poor college students and grannies without cars. 

 

Here's how a 3-C train would benefit me personally.  I am an employee of a large corporation based in Cincinnati.  Corporate travel policies "discourage" (aka prohibit) air travel for distances of less than 250 miles.  My northern Ohio location is 236 miles from the corporate office in Cinci, so I am unable to fly to meetings from Cleveland.  Instead, I can spend over 8 hours roundtrip grinding my way down and up I-71, because someone decided to set the bar for flying at 250 miles. (Strangely, my Youngstown and Erie based colleagues can fly from Cleveland to Cinci because their offices fall outside the 250 mile range :( ) I would far prefer to utilize the train where I can have my laptop and Blackberry going, read a book, balance my accounts, write a report, surf UrbanOhio, or just nap after a long day.  And the combined cost of train and cab fare has to be more economical than the $.50 per mile reimbursement I am presently allowed to claim for driving.

 

(And the Toledo and Lima reps would be jealous since they're in the same situation.)

You're right, business travel will be a key component, but it's difficult to quantify the size of that travel market. I know of no readily available data I can cite. Any one know of a potential source? It might have to be done on a company-by-company basis.

>Will there be tax increases in other areas to compensate?

 

No.  And there won't be tolls either.  States can toll existing interstates, but it's political suicide.  This means even more funding will be diverted from the general fund to keep the freeways free. 

Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program

"Section 1216(b) of TEA-21 established this program allowing up to three existing Interstate facilities (highway, bridge, or tunnel) to be tolled to fund needed reconstruction or rehabilitation on Interstate highway corridors that could not otherwise be adequately maintained or functionally improved without the collection of tolls. Each of the three facilities must be in a different State. There is no special funding authorized for this program. By law, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on a facility for which tolls are being collected under this program."

 

Virginia applied for tolling for I-81 for truck lanes in 2003, and Missouri applied for tolling I-70 for widening, but both haven't done either. Only two applicants out of three have applied, but neither have implemented either. Pennsylvania tried to do a run-around and toll I-80, but that was near political catastrophe. The only instance of tolls being applied to a current interstate was the WV Turnpike (I-64/77), but the interstates were not technically assigned to the turnpike when it was two-laned until 1988.

 

So, Ohio can apply for tolling on I-71, but not on any other facility. And there isn't much purpose of tolling if only one slot is still open, unless the state has intentions of paying back the original construction bonds, including inflation, to the federal government.

I think the key point in all of this debate is this:  will, once the $400 million is spent and the 3-C has its initial phase up and running, the State of Ohio make a commitment to shifting its transportation policies towards more equally distributed transportation spending?  Will they make a commitment to making rail successful?

 

The reason driving is "easier" and the countless "I won't take this b/c I'd just rather drive" excuses come up is b/c the State (and federal) government make driving easier.  If the legislature changes it's tune and spends more money on transit, then train travel will become easier.

 

All of this back and forth really doesn't amount to "will it or won't it work", it's more "will the government make it work or won't it"? 

I'd also like to address a few other of the flawed complaints. I know most folks here probably know these already, but I think they bear reiterating since they do keep coming up.

 

First is the complaint that our cities are so spread out and sprawl-dependent, and without meaningful local transit then long-distance rail is less useful. Well, how is it any worse than flying? In fact, with the train stations being much closer to, if not in the heart of downtown core areas, you're more likely to already be at your destination. If not, well, you'd rent a car or take a cab if you flew in anyway. It's not like those services won't be available at the train stations. Comparing taking the train to driving yourself is fair, but it's not the only situation.

 

There is some truth to this, but "not any worse than flying" isn't really that persuasive of an argument.  Flying is inconvenient and expensive, and would be so even if the TSA were an absolute paragon of efficiency.  This doesn't actually directly address the complaint, which is a justified one.  It really would be better to go local -> metro -> regional rather than the other way around.  Taking the Amtrak into Philly and NYC was great because I was already right there on the subway lines.  The Amtrak station in Alliance was, well, less well-connected.  (Yes, I know, it's Alliance.)

Business is competitive, so rail service will need to be competitive in order to attract business travel.  The ability to deal with paperwork while talking on the phone is certainly advantageous.  But if that were sufficient you wouldn't be on your way to a meeting, would you?  It's been said that false schedules for 3-C have already been published, and any actual schedule will arrive very late in the game... this is troublesome, because the schedule is a make-or-break issue for this market segment.  Perhaps it's time to ask business travellers along the route what sort of schedule they need and work backwards from there.

Yeah, because airlines have schedules years in advance that are planned with business travelers in mind - their schedules changes quite often, which are generally friendly toward business travelers though not always, esp. if you are at 3rd tier or lower airport. Of course, highways plan their scheduled wrecks, ice storms, trucks jackknifing so business folk can get to their destination on time - all years ahead. Of course.

The Transport Politic:

 

Despite Federal Investment, Ohio 3C Corridor Under Threat from State Republicans

 

Republicans on state board could overrule use of funds for new rail service between Cincinnati and Cleveland.

 

Of the corridors receiving multi-million dollar grants from the federal government last month for improved rail service, Ohio’s 3C line arguably provides the most bang for the buck. By 2012, at a cost of $400 million, the state will be able to reactivate passenger operations between Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, via Dayton — a service that’s been out of commission for decades. It will provide the first trains to the state capital since 1977.

 

In the process, the state will be able to connect the nation’s 24th, 26th, 32nd, and 61st largest metro areas, creating a linear conurbation of almost seven million people. It’s one of the most promising new rail lines in the United States.

 

Yeah, because airlines have schedules years in advance that are planned with business travelers in mind - their schedules changes quite often, which are generally friendly toward business travelers though not always, esp. if you are at 3rd tier or lower airport. Of course, highways plan their scheduled wrecks, ice storms, trucks jackknifing so business folk can get to their destination on time - all years ahead. Of course.

 

I'm guessing that's all sarcasm? I honestly can't tell.

Where is the support and press releases from the freight railroads to push forward this investement? 

 

Won't the improvements along this corridor also significantly enhance freight service and capacity - regardless if anyone uses the passenger component?

Yes it is sarcasm. Perhaps an emoticon would have been in order.

I think my posts have been taken a little out of context because I offer a different point of view on the subject. I am not anti-rail. As you can see prior posts, I strongly support light rail and streetcars as the first step toward achieving better transportation. In fact, in theory and principle, I think that the 3C rail is a good thing and it would be something I would like to support.  My point has been that now is not the right time to do this, and the benefit that will be received by this does not justify the cost at this point.

 

While it would be great for business travelers, practicality is that many business travelers who do not work in city centers will be able to take advantage of this. If you go visit a client in the suburbs or a remote location, the train does not work because it will not effectively take you to your client. Now long term, it could encourage people to move and locate in the urban core but initially it would be lightly used by business travelers (who do not work in the urban core) due to the lack of conveinence. Also, citing figures about all the people who do not have an automobile in a city does not justify ridership figures for the train. Just because they do not have a vehicle does not mean that they would have any reason to travel on the train to Cinci, col or CLeveland. This is akin to saying that just because I have a car, I benefit the city of Cleveland because I have the option to drive there whenever I want. I have not been to Cleveland for 10 years even though I could go at anytime. This figure works better when you are speaking about light rail since it would allow people a chance to get the needed services, goods, etc in an efficient manner. Not so much the case with the regional train.

 

I know that the 400 million will be spent by other states if Ohio does not use it. I personally think the money should be used for many other projects first. Light Rail or Streetcars would be a much better idea too.

Where is the support and press releases from the freight railroads to push forward this investement?

 

 

This has been considered. But the freight railroads are concerned that if they appear supportive, they will lose their negotiating position to secure the maximum amount of public funding for rail infrastructure improvements. By expressing desire for this money, they are admitting that they will benefit from the infrastructure investments proposed and therefore may be asked by the state or federal government to provide a share of funding.

I think my posts have been taken a little out of context because I offer a different point of view on the subject. I am not anti-rail. As you can see prior posts, I strongly support light rail and streetcars as the first step toward achieving better transportation. In fact, in theory and principle, I think that the 3C rail is a good thing and it would be something I would like to support.

 

If we do not use this no-match money now, then the FRA will take back the money and spend it in another state. If we wish to reapply for it, then we will we have put up a 20 percent state match. We don't have to put any state money now to get the $400 million.

 

If we wait, say 5 years, and reapply to make those $400 million worth of improvements, then five years of inflation will have taken hold. So now that $400 million worth of improvements will cost $485 million. To get it means having to put up a 20 percent state share, or $97 million in state tax dollars. Ironically, that $97 million over five years is $19.4 million per year -- more than the high-end estimate ($17 million) of the annual operating subsidy (of which the feds will pay 80 percent for the first three years -- meaning the state will have to pay just $3 million per year for the first three years).

 

So, under the current proposal, the state would pay up to $44 million over the first five years out of ODOT's budget -- and only for operating expenses. Or, if we waited five years, the state would have to pay the operating expenses plus the 20 percent capital construction match -- for a total $141 million in state tax dollars.

 

Compare: $44 million if we do this now vs. $141 million if we wait just five years.

 

What do you think is a better deal for Ohio taxpayers? Is spending $97 million more what the GOP means by fiscal responsbility?

 

My point has been that now is not the right time to do this, and the benefit that will be received by this does not justify the cost at this point.

 

Is $111 million per year in annual economic benefit vs. $17 million in annual subsidy not good enough??

Note: The Cincinnati Enquirer article is not against what was originally sold to us by the Obama administration, a true, high-speed line to compete with the Europeans and the Asians. It is against the 39 MPH average speed rail line that is being proposed. And, as noted earlier, Cincinnatians (and the Enquirer) did notice when the city was slighted by having the stop at Sharonville instead of at Union Terminal. Enjoy.

 

Train to glory, or slow boxcar to Cleveland? Don't railroad us

Editorial

The Enquirer • February 19, 2010

 

The romance of rail carries a powerful allure for many Americans, so it's easy to see why the prospect of a passenger train system linking Ohio cities and beyond would create excitement. But romance can't sweep away gritty facts that don't appear to add up about Ohio's proposed 256-mile, six-stop, three-train-a-day "3C" passenger line from Cincinnati to Columbus to Cleveland, which received a $400 million federal funding boost in late January.

 

Ohioans shouldn't be railroaded into a system if it not only doesn't meet their transportation needs, but saddles them with rising costs to operate low-tech, half-empty trains for decades to come. Ohio already faces a potential $8 billion budget deficit when the federal stimulus gravy train runs out of steam, part of a total $180 billion hole the states must confront next year.

I could only read about half of the article before the railroad puns became too much for me to handle.

What are state-sponsored trains really like, inside and out?? Here are videos of state-supported train services from around the country. I think you will enjoy many of these. Some are filmed by DOTs or tourism groups, but most are by individuals. I found them to be informative or entertaining and some are even a little bit emotional. But I think most of these videos will help people "get" train travel in America. Hopefully they will show that what Ohio is trying to do in developing passenger rail service is worthwhile on many different levels....

 

 

How Maine's new state-sponsored Downeaster train service has promoted new jobs, increased commerce, tourism and other economic development around its stations, complete with interviews of key governmental and business leaders on the impacts brought by the new train services....

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=2487581163844444274&hl=en&fs=true

 

In addition to sponsoring four (soon to be six) daily regularly scheduled Amtrak trains between Charlotte, Raleigh and other stations, North Carolina DOT also operates special trains including this Santa Train during the 2009 holidays. Some great views of kids, trains and Santa!....

 

Promoting travel for all persons is a priority of the North Carolina DOT. Here is a video shot by a wheelchair passenger as he uses North Carolina's stations and trains, showing how helpful the Amtrak employees and volunteer train hosts are, and how accessible the services are....

 

Riding Amtrak's Cascades service from Seattle to Portland. The overall service from Eugene, Ore. to Vancouver, B.C. is sponsored by the states of Oregon and Washington. Shows views from the train and accommodations in the train, including its stylish cafe car...

 

Missouri's state-supported Amtrak service, the Missouri River Runner, operates four times daily between St. Louis and Kansas City. Here is a video by Missouri DOT's Rail Division (MoRail) showing the attractions along the route, stations and improvements that have been made to the service...

 

A traveler's experience (first train ride ever!) aboard the state-supported Missouri River Runner. Lots of scenery, views around the train (yes, including the bathroom...) with music and good humor!....

 

New Mexico's state-sponsored RailRunner regional rail service on its first run over the extended route into Santa Fe, per a news documentary. Today, this service carries more than 1.7 million riders per year despite the low average speed (39 mph) and light population densities...

 

A ride on the Heartland Flyer, a daily Amtrak service between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth. This service is sponsored by the states of Oklahoma and Texas. The route south of Ardmore, OK is covered in this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d40Oxuvfitc&feature=related

 

Views of amazing scenery from California's state-supported Pacific Surfliner train service between San Luis Obispo and Los Angeles, set to music. Very nicely done....

 

What is it like on board California's state-supported Pacific Surfliner trains on the section between San Diego and Los Angeles? This video shows the on-board accommodations and the passengers. A great cross section of riders!....

 

Pacific Surfliner business class in car-crazy California with a snack/beverage service area, plus at-seat TVs, drop-down tray tables for computers or food, and power outlets at every seat. Brief but visually informative....

 

I hope you will enjoy these videos.

I could only read about half of the article before the railroad puns became too much for me to handle.

 

I couldn't read half of it because it completely ignores the fact that Ohio is going to tap existing federal grants to pay for the operating costs for the first three years (ending in late 2015), leaving only $3 million per year for the state to easily cover with the LOGO sign program.

 

And it also ignores that, this summer, ODOT is starting the environmental impact studies necessary to secure federal funds to increase speeds to 90-110 mph. The EIS and follow-on engineering/design work should be completed before 2015.

 

The correlation between the two dates is either good planning or a lovely coincidence. Too bad the Enquirer missed it.

 

And again with the 39 mph schedule?? C'mon folks. It's a discussion draft schedule for a service that's almost three years away. It's not carved in marble.

Has the pilfering of the highway service sign program been approved yet? And if you are disputing the 39 MPH schedule, why was this given out to the media and to the public when the initial plan was revealed? If you knew that people would disapprove of the slow speed and the poor scheduling, I would have held that back until something more concrete was formed, because all it did was turn some of the public and media against a proposal they initially supported.

You can't hold it back. It's a public record. While it wasn't made conspicuous by the state (I have some ideas on who did make it conspicuous to the media who were waving around copies of it while asking questions at the big announcement Jan. 28), it should have more clearly identified for what it was/is. But that wasn't my call. Still, the average speed is at the high end of what other states started off with.

 

Pilfering? Well, I guess we know where your opinion is on that one.

I've made my opinion clear on the highway service sign program, which businesses near the Interstate pay into for the right to display their logo along an Interstate highway. That money is then used for litter removal, grass cutting and other programs that directly benefit or impact motorists driving along Interstates (or comparable expressways). I don't see why that should be suddenly diverted to rail. If the 3C is that desperate for funding, it shouldn't be sucking the tits off of everything it can find, because that is only going to generate bad PR and further negative press (and as noted before, the media did pick up on it and it did receive a negative reaction).

 

But I agree with your first paragraph, it should have been more clearly identified, but that it wasn't and what do you expect the media to do? It plays on the rational and sometimes logical fears that we could potentially receive a system that does go 39 MPH. After all, it was a draft schedule release, meaning that that schedule made it through some committee and was agreed upon at some point. And while it can be refined, do you think the average speed would increase all that much?

Sherman...until and unless a dedicated source of funding for passenger rail and mass transit in Ohio can be identified and secured (just as motor vehcile fuel taxes were dedicated to highways), you'd better get used to funds being cobbled together from sources like the ODOT "Blue Sign" program.  These are flexible funds and not necessarily locked into litter control and lawn mowing.

 

Secondly... yes.... average speeds can be increased considerably.  Missouri's state-supported Amtrak service between KC and St. Louis just had almost 20 minutes shaved from its schedule just from opening a new 9,000 foot passing siding on the corridor.  It reduced delays from freight trains and that improves average speed.

 

Thirdly... the draft schedule was not drawn up by committee.  It was the schedule from the Amtrak study and is far from ebing the final word on either speeds or running times.  The fact an average speed of 39 MPH got into the media is that 1) it was a public document freely available to reporters and anyone else and 2) ...don't kid yourself, there are anti-rail elements out there with ties to the highway and oil lobbies that are only to happy to cherry-pick a factoid and twist it around.

And again with the 39 mph schedule?? C'mon folks. It's a discussion draft schedule for a service that's almost three years away. It's not carved in marble.

 

Yes, but you know conservative, anti-rail advocates are going to grasp onto anything to make their case, even if the "evidence" is either misleading or not even true... The Big Lie concept is predicated on the idea that, if you keep bellowing it long and loud enough, even honest folks w/o an agenda will believe it... hell, we even see some pro-rail folks who give it too much credence -- that's how effective, slick and skillful the rail-killers are.

Or how effective a draft document released to the public, knowingly, can turn the tables so easily.

 

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on how we should see the 3C funded. I'm not in favor of stealing money from programs designed for highway use for rail use, and that's my final point.

The Blue Sign possible fund diversion is but one aspect.  I have stated, and the PD agrees, that Ohio law should be changed to allow state gas tax $ to be used for mass transit operating funds; and maybe include intercity rail systems like 3-C.  Sure, the ODOT/highway lobby jumps up 'n down for proposals like funding anything even remotely smelling like transit... On the flip side, I sure wonder how many BILLIONS have been diverted from other potential urban-building programs like mass transit, to feed that beast/sacred cow that is ODOT road-building/maintenance.  To even raise, publicly, a peep about diverting 1 red cent from ODOT is nearly tantamount to committing a criminal act in this State.

 

Funding sources are always really fishy unfortunately.  It's like when they advertise the lottery as supporting education.  Sure, proceeds go to funding education, but once the lottery money comes in they divert the funds that were formerly going to education into something else.  Education gets no more money than it did before, it just comes from a different place. 

 

A little more on topic, what of the general funds that are used to maintain our roads?  The Highway Trust Fund is only for highways (I'm not sure if it's only Interstates, or if it includes US and State highways as well), and it doesn't even come close to paying for all of them.  All our local roads have to be funded from property taxes.  How dare they use those funds for roads instead of schools, garbage collection, police, and fire protection! 

>programs designed for highway use for rail use, and that's my final point.

 

Except the problem is that a significant portion of ODOT's funding is for future capital projects, totally foolish projects like the I-75 widening in Cincinnati.  There is no ROI in building new highways and widening existing ones.  We already have thousands of miles of grade separated highways in this state.  What is another 200-300 miles of US 32's going to do?  If the I-75 widening is going to bring a new wave of prosperity, why not instead of widening it from 4 to 5 lanes widen it to 99 lanes?   

 

This is the item in ODOT's budget that needs to be targeted.  Either divert it to rail directly or eliminate it and create a new account for ongoing rail capital projects.   

Or how effective a draft document released to the public, knowingly, can turn the tables so easily.

 

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on how we should see the 3C funded. I'm not in favor of stealing money from programs designed for highway use for rail use, and that's my final point.

 

OK, if we are to keep things pure, then what about non-user fees and taxes that go into highways, whether taxpayers drive or not? Keep in mind that nearly a million Ohioans do not have access to a private vehicle. An earlier post showed that after user fees (gas taxes, vehicle registraions, etc) were subtracted from the cost of building and maintaining Ohio's roads, the subsidy, paid out of general revenues (non-user) funds amounted to $1.2 billion in 2007. That's every year.

 

If we take your arguments to their logical conclusion, Interstates should be toll roads and the price of gas should substantially increase to cover this loss. It would probably take about a 30 cent per gallon increase to cover this. Then the non-user payments could be directed to things such as bikeways, transit, intercity rail passenger service and other issue instead of being sucked up by roads.

 

Or how effective a draft document released to the public, knowingly, can turn the tables so easily.

 

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on how we should see the 3C funded. I'm not in favor of stealing money from programs designed for highway use for rail use, and that's my final point.

 

I know I've mentioned this before, but y'all really should explore what Pennsylvania is doing with the policy reforms in their DOT.

 

http://www.smart-transportation.com/themes.html

 

 

Unfortunately there's political ROI from any major metropolitan highway expansion.  Highways have proven to work for people so people applaud more highways.  In Cleveland local rail has also proven to work, but for a limited number of people due to limited coverage.  But it is proven, and if Ohio helped like a normal state, RTA rail could pick up a lot more users (and pro-rail voters) by extending the lines.  Local rail would quickly prove itself in Ohio's other cities, just like it does everywhere it's built. 

 

And the bottom line is that intercity rail loses a lot of efficacy if local rail isn't there first.  People who are marginally amenable to intercity rail, a necessary part of the market, may draw the line at buses.  Think about if transfers were to be involved.  Ugh.  It better be nice outside.  And even if you're OK with hopping right on a strange bus system, it's not going to get you far without taking forever... and a lot of places may be inreachable by bus, especially on a weekend. 

 

There has to be a quicker and more reliable option for reaching outlying areas of the metro.  That's what local rail does for you.  Ohio's metros are extra-sprawly so this is paramount here.  And no, nearby car rental isn't an answer, because the main competition for these trips is not flying but bringing your own car.  And having people pick you up because you took the train is also not an answer.  Taxi?  That'll cost more than the train ticket.     

 

It's more clear than ever that all 3 of the C's need to get serious about local rail.  We need to start seeing local candidates in urban areas having rail as a major part of their platform.  We also need urban transit administrators who prioritize rail.  Ultimately this is a political matter and it needs to be addressed politically in Ohio's urban counties.  Until we have that it's going nowhere.   

 

I'm afraid none of that helps us right now... a 39 mph intercity line is not the best possible first-impression type of rail project, yet that's exactly what it is for many Ohioans.  I think 39 average speed may be politically untenable.  Any amount of corrective information that could be disseminated would be most helpful at this time.  If you're likely to need to need a car or a bus trip as soon as you arrive... as if you took an airplane... it's just gotta be faster than 39. 

 

I know I've mentioned this before, but y'all really should explore what Pennsylvania is doing with the policy reforms in their DOT.

 

http://www.smart-transportation.com/themes.html

 

 

 

That's some good stuff. Pretty revolutionary for the U.S.

Finally, a newspaper column that got the story right....

 

OPINION: Will Ohio leave the station?

What other states know about passenger rail

By Michael Douglas

Beacon Journal editorial page editor

 

Published on Sunday, Feb 21, 2010

 

Three hours and 23 minutes from Cleveland to Columbus! Six hours and 30 minutes from Cleveland to Cincinnati! Skeptics howled about the schedule that accompanied the recent unveiling of $400 million in federal stimulus money for Ohio to pursue passenger rail in the state.

 

They ridiculed the top speed of 79 miles per hour, and had more fun kicking the average speed of 40 miles per hour. They hooted about the prospect of just four trains in operation. They warned about the eventual cost.

 

Jon Husted, the former House speaker, now state senator seeking to be secretary of state, declared the project ''could serve as one of the biggest money pits in Ohio history.''

 

Heavens!

 

Is this idea really so awful?

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/douglas/84881872.html

The interesting discussion about how to pay for roads in the near future was moved to:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7852.msg464755.html#msg464755

 

Carry on. :)

February 18, 2010

HNTB: High-speed rail support still strong

http://www.metro-magazine.com/News/Story/2010/02/HNTB-survey-HSR-support-still-strong.aspx

 

New America THINKS survey results from HNTB Corp. illustrate that transit and passenger rail remain at the top of America's minds after the Obama administration's $8 billion high-speed rail grant announcement last month.

Nearly nine in 10 (88 percent) Americans are currently open to high-speed rail for long-distance travel within the U.S. While this is a strong majority, that support is down slightly from the 94 percent America THINKS recorded in March 2009.

 

"The time has come for high-speed rail," said Peter Gertler, HNTB high-speed rail services chair. "Stimulus money is seeding initial projects. It'll be up to those of us in the industry — working in partnership with transportation agencies and elected officials — to keep up the momentum."

Dear Ohioans, Check out www.linkingohio.com .......

 

Please show our state leaders that you support Linking Ohio's effort for 3C trains! Use all or part of the suggested text…add your own personal reasons of why you're Ready to Ride in Ohio, and click send. This letter will be sent to your respective state legislators, and automatically carbon copied to:

 

• Governor Strickland

• House Speaker Armond Budish

• Senate President Bill Harris

• Director of the Ohio Department of Transportation

 

Also, the three Republican members of the State Controlling Board need to be contacted, as any funding regardless of source spent by ODOT/ORDC on 3C must be approved this board with a 5-2 supermajority. There are four Democratic members on the board who support 3C. At least one of the three GOP members must be supportive, too.

 

Here are the three Republican members of the State Controlling Board who need to be contacted:

 

Sen. John Carey, District 17

Senate Building, Room 127

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 466-8156

[email protected]

Aide: Katherine Frisina

 

Sen. David Goodman, District 3

Senate Building, Ground Floor

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 466-8064

[email protected]

Aide: Jim Laipply

 

 

Rep. Jay Hottinger, District 71

Riffe Center, 10th Floor

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 466-1482

[email protected]

Aide: Jonathan Baker

 

Background: Ohio is following the lead of other states and nations which began their high-speed rail programs with a basic, fiscally conservative, 79-mph passenger rail service on existing rail corridors. Ohio's start-up service will immediately create 255 construction jobs and 144 permanent jobs directly associated with the trains. The U.S. Department of Commerce says the $400 million investment in 3C passenger rail will create economic benefits three times greater. And All Aboard Ohio estimates that travelers' savings from using the trains are forecast to average $75 per passenger and generate consumer spending in Ohio of $232 per passenger -- 10 times greater than the subsidy. Eighty percent of that operating subsidy will come from existing federal funds, limiting the state's support to about $3 million per year until late 2015. And with capital construction funding available through existing federal rail programs, Ohio would soon be able to improve and expand passenger rail service in 3C and on other routes statewide. Planning for that expansion will begin this year and be ready for construction as early as 2015, thereby allowing for the 3C trains' speeds to be increased to 90-110 mph, attracting more passengers and reducing the state's operating subsidy.

 

Thanks for your efforts!

FACT CHECK: Politics creep into Ohio rail debate

By MATT LEINGANG • Associated Press • February 22, 2010

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Critics of Ohio's plan for a passenger train system have denounced it as a boondoggle and a money pit, and the project appears to be surrounded by political posturing as it heads to a vote this spring.

 

Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat who lobbied the White House hard to get $400 million in stimulus money for the project, has decried detractors as cheerleaders for failure. Republican state lawmakers have been particularly outspoken, raising legitimate questions but often ignoring credible answers.

 

Plans call for a 79-mph startup rail service that would run on freight tracks connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati, beginning in 2012. It would serve as a down payment on a future 110-mph service, with branches connecting to a Chicago-based Midwest corridor and cities on the East Coast.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20100222/UPDATES01/100222019

Finally, a newspaper column that got the story right....

 

OPINION: Will Ohio leave the station?

What other states know about passenger rail

By Michael Douglas

Beacon Journal editorial page editor

 

Published on Sunday, Feb 21, 2010

 

Three hours and 23 minutes from Cleveland to Columbus! Six hours and 30 minutes from Cleveland to Cincinnati! Skeptics howled about the schedule that accompanied the recent unveiling of $400 million in federal stimulus money for Ohio to pursue passenger rail in the state.

 

They ridiculed the top speed of 79 miles per hour, and had more fun kicking the average speed of 40 miles per hour. They hooted about the prospect of just four trains in operation. They warned about the eventual cost.

 

Jon Husted, the former House speaker, now state senator seeking to be secretary of state, declared the project ''could serve as one of the biggest money pits in Ohio history.''

 

Heavens!

 

Is this idea really so awful?

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/douglas/84881872.html

 

Outstanding editorial.  The smartest I've seen on the subject, to date.

They also ran the AP article doing a fact check on it as well.

Too bad the Enquirer just came out with an editorial slamming the project.

 

Despite the generally level-headed UO downstaters, that part of the State has more than share of conservative types; so its not surprising that the Akron and Cleveland editorials have been more supportive than Cincy and C-Bus... oh yeah, we'll forget about Tom Suddes...

I would say the issue regarding CUT and the missing funding on bringing the 3C to Cincinnati helped drive that editorial more than anything.

I'm not in favor of stealing money from programs designed for highway use for rail use, and that's my final point.

 

Gee, not one cent of the tax on the gasoline that goes into my lawnmower, benefits my lawn.  And as far as I am aware, railroad diesel fuel taxes don't go to the railroads. Cigarette taxes don't go to tobacco growers and liquor taxes don't go to vintners and distillers. Doesn't seem fair.

Fairer coverage is making its way into Ohio media and providing a better context for why Ohio is seeking what it is seeking. Here's another......

 

 

Ohio's rail proposal draws comparisons to New England's Downeaster

The rail line from Boston to Portland, ME, has advocates and critics alike.

By WTVN Newsroom

Friday, February 19, 2010

 

Ohio's $400 million grant to develop a train system to run through the 3-C corridor has elicited a number of viewpoints on mass transit -- even prompting Governor Ted Strickland to label critics of the plan "cheerleaders for failure".

 

But how effective is New England's Amtrak system that Ohio's proposal is based upon?

 

Listen as WTVN's Colin Smith takes a closer look:

http://www.610wtvn.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=268656&article=6796120