Represented the 7th Senate District, which includes all of Warren County and portions of Hamilton County.

 

 

http://www.ohiosenate.gov/shannon-jones.html

And according to the Federal Highway Administration, Ohio SUBSIDIZES roads to the tune of about $1.2 billion a YEAR. Where is the righteous indignation over that??? These idiots want to swat the Amtrak fly while ignoring the highway elephant.

 

The highways uber alles crowd, led by Chris Runyan of the Ohio Contractors Association, is out there feeding old, bad information to Kasich, Husted and the rest of the "who cares about Ohio as long as I get elected" crowd. At a recent meeting of the Transportation Matters board in which the board members (representing transit, rail and highway interests) discussed their multimodal agenda for increasing funding for all modes of transportation in Ohio, Runyan reportedly asked the group: "Why do we have to have a multimodal agenda?" What Chris Runyan and the Paul Bunyan sized pair between his legs apparently don't understand is that many of OCA's members earn a pretty good living building transit facilities, rail infrastructure and bikeways. Multimodal money is growing more than highway dollars are. OCA's members and their board need to confront Runyan about this; the OCA's members play in a bigger sandbox than Runyan apparently realizes. If he keeps Ohio out of the transportation investment loop because of his narrow-mindedness, OCA's members are going to lose out on an awful lot of business.

 

 

Where is she from?

 

Pluto.

Represented the 7th Senate District, which includes all of Warren County and portions of Hamilton County.

 

 

http://www.ohiosenate.gov/shannon-jones.html

It looks like HamCo is seriously gerrymandered for Republican dominance.

One thing to emphasize: transit employs a much-broader range of building trades, often doing higher-value work, than roads do. I mean, with roads, you mostly have people who excavate, install drainage, build (some) structures, and lay concrete or asphalt. Transit, especially electrified rail, includes all of these types of work but also uses ironworkers to lay the tracks, electricians to construct power systems and signals, ventilation contractors for indoor facilities, and all the other component parts that go into the constructing the stations. Plus you've got all the jobs involved with maintaining the equipment.

 

The roadbuilders can nevertheless make this claim: you have to continuously rebuild them. That makes a lot of work for people. And for higher taxes to pay for it.

 

Where is she from?

 

Pluto.

 

I laugh out loud at these, then I scold myself.  OK, I called her a "potato lady" too on the last page, so this is to me as well.  I shouldn't have done that and here's why.  She's pretty much right.  First of all... her BS has decent production values.  As noted, this stuff is well funded so it's probably gonna reach some people.  This means any extent to which she's right is troublesome.  And her points about the practicality of the service, at currently proposed speeds, are solid.  They seem to hold water for 3C skeptics of all varieties, not just the out-there ideological ones. 

 

I'm not even sure I'd put this lady in that category... her final point, as stated, is not anti-rail... she's arguing specifically against operating it before we can reach reasonable speeds.  She doesn't stand against rail in Ohio, but she doesn't want Ohio to operate rail at a service level that isn't as practical here as it may elsewhere be.  She's not aiming at the far right.  She's aiming at the mainstream, and she knows the mainstream is not anti-rail, so she couches and qualifies accordingly.                   

^

Of course she doesn't say she is against rail, because she knows a large majority of Americans like the idea of trains.

 

What rail opponents have learned is not to say they're "against rail" -- rather, just to be against whatever plan that happens to be on the table at the time. Pick at the details -- the route, the cost, the financing, the performance, whatever. But if you look at their records over time, they will have always opposed any rail plan no matter what it is. If it's a streetcar, they'll say we should have light rail instead. If it's light rail, then it needs to be busways. If dedicated busways are proposed, well, then, HOT lanes are the better answer. If it's inter-city rail, then it has to 100 MPH+ rail from the get-go.

 

This strategy has played out extensively and often successfully in campaign after campaign acorss the country this decade.

^

Of course she doesn't say she is against rail, because she knows a large majority of Americans like the idea of trains.

 

What rail opponents have learned is not to say they're "against rail" -- rather, just to be against whatever plan that happens to be on the table at the time. Pick at the details -- the route, the cost, the financing, the performance, whatever. But if you look at their records over time, they will have always opposed any rail plan no matter what it is. If it's a streetcar, they'll say we should have light rail instead. If it's light rail, then it needs to be busways. If dedicated busways are proposed, well, then, HOT lanes are the better answer. If it's inter-city rail, then it has to 100 MPH+ rail from the get-go.

 

This strategy has played out extensively and often successfully in campaign after campaign acorss the country this decade.

 

I don't think the strategy has been successful by accident.  I don't think low speed rail has been successful by accident either, in other places, but a lot of people see clear distinctions between that and this.  Similarly, a lot of people who opposed the busway on Euclid Avenue openly wanted a streetcar there.  A nuanced position isn't necessarily a cover for secret transit-hate.  Some plans make more sense than others.  Let's not conflate plan-specific opposition with some broader agenda.  In terms of convincing the undecided, the motive of the other side is irrelevant anyway.  It's nice to know, but it's irrelevant.

 

I'd prefer not to let rail in Ohio rise and fall on the strength of this particular plan.  And I'm increasingly baffled about why it's so impossible to adapt that plan.  It seems like several compromises might be available, or at least conceivable, but the pro-rail side is holed up in Fort 3C.  But the 3C plan doesn't have eyes, it doesn't have a soul, so it's not murder cut it open and work on it.  Right? 

 

Here's one idea, just throwing it out there... why not delay the actual onset of service (and operational expenses) until after we've finished the necessary steps to allow better average speeds.  That would also give us a chance to maybe coordinate the transit planning in the 3C's to make intercity rail travel a more workable option for people.  It would also give us a chance to coordinate more closely with our neighbor states.  It would also give us a chance to evaluate the statutory scheme for rail in Ohio and perhaps update it to meet today's needs.  If this is going to be an election year issue, which looks to be the case, how about putting the entire issue on the table?  That way people would feel more ownership of the plan we eventually emerge with. 

 

The idea here is reaching out to the pro-rail mainstream.  Instead of demanding that they accept something they've been offered on a take it or leave it basis, let's engage them in a discussion about the future.  Let's leverage the fact that people are finally talking about this and make sure the result of that conversation is pro-rail, even if it the result isn't 3C.   

^

I think the problem with this approach, whatever its other merits, is that the terms of the grant award by the Feds requires that the service be operational by sometime in 2012. So Ohio can't just accept the money, make the improvements on the ground and delay the start of the inter-city rail service.

 

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

I'd like to see someone photo-shop Shannon Jones' handouts and turn it around on her in a satircal way.... nothing is more effective that well-place humor to counter drivel such as hers.  And it would be so easy to make fun of her....for starters:

 

....she doesn't know passenger trains don't run behind steam locomotives any more?  (Gee Shannon...too hard to find a photo of a modern train on the Internet?)

...."Cost estimates keep rising".... Oh, and that doesn't happen on highway or airport projects, Shannon?

...."taxpayers will subsidize the trains"...OMG Shannon!  Will you soon be turning your critical eye on how other modes are subsidized?

 

 

That's correct, John. The 3C project has to be underway by a certain deadline but I don't know what that is. And any federally project construction project, under terms of NEPA, cannot be altered without explicit permission from the federal agency which awarded the funds.

 

If a project sponsor, in this case the Ohio Rail Development Commission, wishes to completely ignore the original federally approved plan as 327 suggests, it would result in relinquishing the federal funds.

 

Why? Even a comparatively modest change (however substantial by federal planning regs) -- such as going to Cincinnati Union Terminal instead of Lunken Field -- will require years of additional time, effort and millions of dollars just for planning money. That at least could be done while 3C is underway. Under NEPA, any substantial change to the plan to which the federal agency awarded money will require the project sponsor(s) to hold public hearings and conduct a planning effort to evaluate under terms of NEPA what is needed. Again, using the local desire to go to Cincinnati Union Terminal as an example, the NEPA-required preliminary engineering and environmental documentation (such as an environmental assessment or categorical exclusion) needed to do this is estimated to cost $1 million. Final design will add another $2 million. By the time this work is done, it will be likely be 2013 -- then construction can start.

 

So why not use the $400 million no-match federal grant now since most/all of that investment will benefit a 90-110 mph 3C service anyway?

 

++ If we don't use it now, it goes back to the feds for them to use on another state's shovel-ready RAIL project. It cannot be used for anything other than rail.

 

++ This 100 percent federal stimulus grant was a one-shot deal. Otherwise the most the feds will pay for a project like 3C is 80 percent.

 

++ Ohio will have to reapply for the same improvements in a 90-110 mph service in the future (at least 5-7 years from now -- that's how long the NEPA process will take for 90-110 mph).

 

++ Ohio will have to pay for 5-7 years of inflation at 4% percent cumulative per year (an average of $17 million over 5-7 years! Gee, the same as the dreaded operating subsidy for which Ohio would pay just $3 per year over the first three years thanks to another federal grant).

 

++ So in 5-7 years, the same $400 million worth of improvements will cost $485 million to $520 million -- and Ohio will have to pay 20 percent of that larger cost, or $100 million, whereas today it doesn't have to spend anything.

 

So, if you really want fast trains in Ohio in our lifetimes, please tell me why it makes sense to wait.

 

Folks like Kasich and Husted have come under the influence of the highway lobby. They don't want trains in Ohio at any speed for fear it will break the highwaymen's monopoly.

What is the highway lobby? Who are the highwaymen?

Even a comparatively modest change (however substantial by federal planning regs) -- such as going to Cincinnati Union Terminal instead of Lunken Field -- will require years of additional time, effort and millions of dollars just for planning money.

 

I find myself becoming more and more apathetic about this rail plan every day. I think I'll just keep up on the Cincy Streetcar developments.

http://www.ohiocontractors.org/ (the loudest anti-rail voice in Ohio)

 

http://www.aaa.com/ (they do more than Triptiks! They also have a powerful lobbying arm)

 

http://www.opmca.org/ (they fight to preserve the Ohio Constitutional prohibition against using gas taxes for anything other roads)

 

http://www.ohiotruckingassn.org/ (do I have to describe them?)

 

http://www.ooga.org/ (ditto -- more oil consumption is never a bad thing to them)

Here's one example of an event in Cleveland that I (and probably others) would use the 3C to attend.

 

I'd probably go to Cleveland a lot more often if the 3C was running regularly.

 

http://writersandreaders.cpl.org/kunstler.html

 

James Howard Kunstler

Sunday, March 14, 2010

2:00 p.m.

Louis Stokes Wing Auditorium

 

An author, journalist, and urban planning expert, James Howard Kunstler is one of the foremost social critics of our time. The Geography of Nowhere (1993) and Home from Nowhere (1996) established him as a fierce critic of suburban sprawl and the high cost of our automobile-dependant culture.

 

His bestselling book, The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the 21st Century (2005) addressed the ongoing global oil crisis by exploring the sweeping economic, political and societal changes that will result from the inevitable end of access to cheap fossil fuels. He expanded on his previous criticisms and detailed the impact the crisis will have on the way we live, work, farm and build.

Even a comparatively modest change (however substantial by federal planning regs) -- such as going to Cincinnati Union Terminal instead of Lunken Field -- will require years of additional time, effort and millions of dollars just for planning money.

I find myself becoming more and more apathetic about this rail plan every day. I think I'll just keep up on the Cincy Streetcar developments.

^Probably a better investment of your time and energy since the streetcar will do a lot more or Cincinnati than the 3C will.

 

http://www.ohiocontractors.org/ (the loudest anti-rail voice in Ohio)

 

http://www.aaa.com/ (they do more than Triptiks! They also have a powerful lobbying arm)

 

http://www.opmca.org/ (they fight to preserve the Ohio Constitutional prohibition against using gas taxes for anything other roads)

 

http://www.ohiotruckingassn.org/ (do I have to describe them?)

 

http://www.ooga.org/ (ditto -- more oil consumption is never a bad thing to them)

Any facts/figures on their lobbying of politicians/anti-rail spending?

^Probably a better investment of your time and energy since the streetcar will do a lot more or Cincinnati than the 3C will.

 

Actually, it would be a better use of your time since 3C start-up is fully funded and the streetcar is not. If you tie both together, that would a great thing, but the most important thing for both projects is to get them started, then expand them so they can connect with each other and other assets.

 

 

 

Any facts/figures on their lobbying of politicians/anti-rail spending?

 

A quick search of Google will reveal some of their vitriol. Here's a result of a Google search on OCA....

 

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Ohio+Contractors+Association%2C+3C+rail&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&fp=118a371a2723b5b1

 

Is it surprising to you they oppose rail projects? Read the book "Getting There" by Stephen Goddard.

 

I can't help but feel the same way some time.

 

Then the opposition is winning.

 

Try fighting this battle for 26 years as I have (BuckeyeB has been fighting it for 40 years).... 

 

Just having any funding or momentum for rail in Ohio is an incredibly huge victory. Once the trains get on the tracks, it opens up all kinds of possibilities for improvement and expansion throughout Ohio. It is why the opposition is fighting us so hard. John knows this from his fight for rail transit in Cincinnati. Once you get something rolling, there is no going back.

^

 

Cincinnati officials are focusing on a temporary site for a Cincinnati station in Bond Hill about midway between downtown and Sharonville. Because it is on the original alignment that would have gone to Lunken Airport and through the East End to Downtown, I doubt that it needs any more environmental review. So the eventual change in the location of the Cincinnati station to Cincinnati Union Terminal shouldn't affect the schedule. The train will just stop about six or seven miles short of the CBD for a couple of years. I don't think it's a big deal.

Cincinnati officials are focusing on a temporary site for a Cincinnati station in Bond Hill about midway between downtown and Sharonville. Because it is on the original alignment that would have gone to Lunken Airport and through the East End to Downtown, I doubt that it needs any more environmental review. So the eventual change in the location of the Cincinnati station to Cincinnati Union Terminal shouldn't affect the schedule. The train will just stop about six or seven miles short of the CBD for a couple of years. I don't think it's a big deal.

 

Where are officials proposing to put the station near Bond Hill? It looks like the best locations are:

 

> Langdon Farm Road - Behind the Cincinnati Gardens off Carthage Court;

> Lester/Highland area - Not much room for parking though, unless it's built south of the Biggs grocery store;

> Montgomery Road - Looks like a spot NW of the bridge on a commercial access road might work but the nearby residential area presents a potential NIMBY issue.

 

Other sites?

 

BTW, changing the Cincinnati station site is a significant enough modification that I wouldn't be surprised if the FRA requires a public hearing before they will accept it.

I'm with the city on this one, Bond Hill/Norwood or bust.

What is the expected annual ROI from 3C? I've searched a bit, and can't find it...if someone can just spit it out, I'm wasting time searching! Thanks :)

So why not use the $400 million no-match federal grant now since most/all of that investment will benefit a 90-110 mph 3C service anyway?

 

I've already suggested a lot of reasons why not.  The public might be more interested in launching a competitive service than in getting a service to market ASAP.  There is a sense that the operating costs during 3C's indefinite slow period do not justify themselves, and that this money would be better spent on hastening our progress toward more marketable speeds.  If the slow period were less indefinite, that alone would help.   

So why not use the $400 million no-match federal grant now since most/all of that investment will benefit a 90-110 mph 3C service anyway?

 

I've already suggested a lot of reasons why not.  The public might be more interested in launching a competitive service than in getting a service to market ASAP.  There is a sense that the operating costs during 3C's indefinite slow period do not justify themselves, and that this money would be better spent on hastening our progress toward more marketable speeds.  If the slow period were less indefinite, that alone would help.   

Your argument seems to rest primarily on public perception. Considering the availability of funds available now, and the unlikelihood of a similar situation in the future, it would have to take a very, very long time for the speeds to increase, in order for the savings not to be practical. You also must assume that the slower speed line will not be effective in generating ridership and development near train stations.

 

We also need jobs ASAP.

 

So does your objection completely hinge upon getting popular support for a plan? Because it's hard to imagine that a better financial position will show up in the future.

Because many of the benefits of public projects can't be monetized, Benefit/Cost Analysis, not ROI, is the proper way to evaluate them.

You keep asking the same questions but expecting different answers.

 

I will say it more plainly:  there is no way to hasten or otherwise expedite the development 90-110 mph trains in any federally funded corridor.

 

I am sorry you don't like the answer.

 

What is the expected annual ROI from 3C? I've searched a bit, and can't find it...if someone can just spit it out, I'm wasting time searching! Thanks :)

 

If you mean in terms of economic impact from the initial capital investment, the U.S. Department of Commerce says it's 3-to-1.

 

If you mean in terms of ongoing economic benefit from the annual operating subsidy, it's 6.5-to-1.

Natininja, yes, I think popular support is necessary for this to work in the long term.  Possibly in the short term as well.

 

KJP, I keep expecting the answer to contain a rationale.  Is it physically impossible to do environmental studies or design work for higher speeds unless slow trains are currently operational?  Does the federal government mandate that states run slow trains for a certain amount of time before they're allowed to do anything else?  Either of these could be the case, or maybe it's something else entirely, but it's not clear why our options have ever been limited to "this way or the highway." 

 

A federal mandate for slow 3C service seems at odds with the intent of the program its funding came from, that of a midwest high speed network with a Chicago Hub.  While connecting the 3C's is a worthy goal, it could certainly be argued that it would be secondary to Chicago connections under this federal plan.  And we already have rail service from Cleveland to Chicago, so how are we no further along on that route than on 3C?  It's not clear why the feds are all about Chicago Hub and high speed, yet they'd prefer Ohio forget about speeding up its existing Chicago service and instead construct a new slow line running perpendicular to it.     

 

I can't help but feel the same way some time.

 

Then the opposition is winning.

 

Try fighting this battle for 26 years as I have (BuckeyeB has been fighting it for 40 years).... 

 

Just having any funding or momentum for rail in Ohio is an incredibly huge victory. Once the trains get on the tracks, it opens up all kinds of possibilities for improvement and expansion throughout Ohio. It is why the opposition is fighting us so hard. John knows this from his fight for rail transit in Cincinnati. Once you get something rolling, there is no going back.

 

LOL. I've spend my entire career planning for transit and TOD. A lot of people on UrbanOhio are some of the best friends this issue will ever have. I echo Johio's sentiments; I will always root for you guys.

 

The opposition must have me in its clutches...

^

So you realize 3C, as is, is better to implement now than to wait, but you are dismayed because you think it's unpopular? Is that a correct assessment?

 

And then you don't understand why the plans can't be improved in order to make it more popular.

 

I follow this, but I don't follow the idea that we should scrap it if we can't alter the plans...if that's what you're suggesting. If that's not what you're suggesting, then I don't really see why you're talking about a Chicago connection, as that is not what we have federal money to do, and we can't switch the plan to do that with the money. So what should have been done is a moot point, as 3C is what we have the money for,

 

Both Cincinnati and Cleveland have existing service to Chicago. I would hope those are next in line for updates.

 

I am really dismayed by the Union Terminal issues. I have a feeling the fact that UT is all clogged up is going to give Cincy the raw end of Ohio's rail projects for years to come.

Sixty years ago, there were 200 trains a day through the yards at Cincinnati Union Terminal. Now there are 100. A third main line was added just a few years ago. A fourth main is being proposed. I can't believe that computers, sophisticated signals and modern logisitcs can't solve this problem.

 

Plus, the people of Cincinnati are solidly behind using CUT. There is no sentiment to have a station anywhere else. City Council passed a Resolution last week essentially saying the same. It will get done somehow.

 

In 1995, when I was on the board of Downtown Cincinnati Inc. and headed its transportation committee, I proposed totally reconfiguring Fort Washington Way (I-71) through downtown, narrowing it by half and opening up our riverfront to flood-proof, mixed-used development for the first time since Cincinnati was founded in 1788. The City Hall bureaucracy and ODOT, which were then about ready to rebuild FWW just was way it had always been since it opened in the Fifties, went crazy. They said a project that complicated couldn't possibly be finished for 15-20 years, that the environmental review alone would take five years. They said it could never be financed. The Hamilton County Engineer complained to a leading downtown employer that I was "messing with the pyramids" by pursuing the project and tried to kill it. Turns out, as a young man, he'd worked on the original FWW as an ODOT employee and couldn't imagine that there could ever be a better solution.

 

But the idea gained the support of the mayor, city manager and every member of City Council and was totally completed in 2000 to worldwide acclaim. Today the first buildings of what will eventually be a $1 billion development on Cincinnati's new riverfront are under construction. Come to a Reds game this summer and see it.

 

My point is, bureaucracies want to do what they have always done. But sooner or later, with persistence, they get the big picture and make things happen. I think this will be the case with 3C.

KJP, I keep expecting the answer to contain a rationale. Is it physically impossible to do environmental studies or design work for higher speeds unless slow trains are currently operational?

 

No. It is illegal to use the $400 million no-match grant for higher-speed trains. Even if it weren't, the grant will expire by the time NEPA planning for the faster trains is done in 5-7 years. That assumes the planning starts this year, but not all the funding is in place for that yet.

 

Does the federal government mandate that states run slow trains for a certain amount of time before they're allowed to do anything else?

 

No. But the federal government does mandate that the planning and public involvement that's been done match the federal funding request that's beens submitted. And once that grant has been awarded, you can't significantly change it without literally going back to the drawing board. If Ohio had started planning 5-7 years ago for a 90-110 mph passenger rail service and submitted the application for federal funds for it, then we would be building that level of service. But the political base/constituency in Ohio didn't exist for that great of a leap in project advancement. Usually the only way a state reaches that level of political support is in baby steps, which is why no high-speed rail service has begun without a conventional-speed precedent. It has nothing to do with a federal mandate. It has everything to do with political realities.

 

Either of these could be the case, or maybe it's something else entirely, but it's not clear why our options have ever been limited to "this way or the highway."

 

See above and other messages on this.

 

A federal mandate for slow 3C service seems at odds with the intent of the program its funding came from, that of a midwest high speed network with a Chicago Hub. While connecting the 3C's is a worthy goal, it could certainly be argued that it would be secondary to Chicago connections under this federal plan. And we already have rail service from Cleveland to Chicago, so how are we no further along on that route than on 3C? It's not clear why the feds are all about Chicago Hub and high speed, yet they'd prefer Ohio forget about speeding up its existing Chicago service and instead construct a new slow line running perpendicular to it.

 

See my other messages about where rail projects are hatched and advanced -- they are hatched by states which have an easier time advancing rail projects that are almost wholly within one state. Multiple states that try coordinate planning for projects amongst themselves is extremely difficult.

 

For example, Chicago-St. Louis advanced because it's almost entirely within Illinois -- Missouri has played no measurable role in the advancement of that corridor from two daily 79 mph trains to the cusp of 110 mph.

 

For example, Chicago-Detroit is offering 95 mph (soon 110 mph) train service between the Indiana state line and Kalamazoo because Michigan has taken the lead role in this advancing this corridor. Neither Indiana or Illinois have provided any financial or planning assistance to advancing this or any of the other two Michigan-Chicago routes, which have just 20 miles of route in Indiana and about 20 miles in Illinois.

 

We are not so lucky in Ohio when it comes to getting to Chicago. Indiana is in the way. If we had just 20 miles of it to cross, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But since a significant portion of the Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati routes to Chicago are through Indiana, it will require them to spend money on planning, building and subsidizing the trains.

 

 

LOL. I've spend my entire career planning for transit and TOD. A lot of people on UrbanOhio are some of the best friends this issue will ever have. I echo Johio's sentiments; I will always root for you guys.

 

The opposition must have me in its clutches...

 

You are lucky that you've spent it in the transit field. Transit has had a steady source of federal capital funding for almost 30 years, and ongoing yet uneven capital funding before that. You were allowed to dream, and see your dreams get funded.

 

Intercity passenger rail got its first federal capital funding program in 2008 (yes, for the first time in 170+ years of railroad history) with the passage of the Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act. Only then were guys like me allowed to come out of the closet and talk seriously about linking the 3C's with passenger rail, and without Ohio having to bear 100 percent of the cost.

Sixty years ago, there were 200 trains a day through the yards at Cincinnati Union Terminal. Now there are 100. A third main line was added just a few years ago. A fourth main is being proposed. I can't believe that computers, sophisticated signals and modern logisitcs can't solve this problem.

 

John, while there 200 trains a day that came down the Mill Creek valley back then, only 126 of them (at peak) were passenger trains that came into CUT. The freight trains used separate tracks away from CUT and which are gone today. In fact, there were two separate rail corridors that came down the Mill Creek valley. One (the Baltimore & Ohio) was on the west side of the creek. The other (New York Central) was on the east side. Both were mostly double-tracked railroads but widened to three tracks near CUT. The B&O freight traffic stayed on the west side of the creek all the way to the Ohio River.

 

South of where Colerain Avenue crosses the NYC, the NYC had separate freight yards and passenger tracks, and the NYC's freight traffic was much less than it is today at the much larger Queensgate Yard. The NYC freight yard was dramatically expanded in the 1960s in the Queensgate Yard we know today. Also all of the NYC freight activity was on tracks aligned between Mill Creek and the passenger main tracks. No freight activity, except for package express (which was handled on passenger trains) was on the east side (Spring Grove Avenue side) of the passenger tracks.

 

In the late 1960s, the B&O line on the west side of Mill Creek was abandoned and consolidated its traffic with the two-tracked NYC line south of Winton Place. Use the website www.historicalaerials.com to see the dramatic changes in trackage between 1956 and today.

 

Today, there are no tracks available exclusively for passenger trains. Everything has freight traffic on it, and a lot more freight traffic. Freight trains are much longer today than they were back then. A freight car was 40-60 feet long. Today, most are 60-86 feet long. There are also more freight cars per train, so what was a long freight train in 1950 (one mile) is half as long as a freight train today. That causes serious capacity challenges. There is also a CSX intermodal freight terminal built on the east side of the mainline, in addition to the various yards of Queensgate between the mainline and the creek. Every available flat spot past Queensgate has a track, structure, bridge support or freight facility on it, so dirt needs to be graded, bridge abutments/supports moved, tracks realigned and signal masts moved.

 

One more interesting fact about freight traffic today in that area. All northbound freight traffic (be it NS's or CSX's) use CSX's line from Winton Place north to Hamilton. Conversely, all southbound freight traffic (NS's or CSX's) use NS's line from Hamilton south to Winton Place. Half of the latter routing -- south of Evendale -- is the proposed 3C route. So half of the 3C passenger trains will be swimming upstream, against the primary flow of freight traffic. That is going to require some major capacity enhancements north of Winton Place. The The Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority, which is undertaking the CUT/Fourth Main Access Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Assessment, may not have a wide enough scope of work for its planning. It needs to address capacity issues all the way north to Evendale.

KJP, given what you were saying about states coordinating on rail, which would you suspect is more likely from IN: improvements from Chicago to Toledo or from Chicago to Cincy?

 

I'm guessing they would want to service Indy, but that's also the longer route. Also the Toledo line serves the purpose of getting toward the east coast/NYC, which may be a factor...just for fun speculation, y'know?

 

Also, given what you're saying about CUT...what are your predictions here? A Bond Hill station and then maybe CUT like years and years and years down the road (or track, as it were)?

KJP, given what you were saying about states coordinating on rail, which would you suspect is more likely from IN: improvements from Chicago to Toledo or from Chicago to Cincy?

 

I'm guessing they would want to service Indy, but that's also the longer route. Also the Toledo line serves the purpose of getting toward the east coast/NYC, which may be a factor...just for fun speculation, y'know?

 

Indianapolis has shown very little interest in the Chicago-Cincinnati route. The only reason why INDOT submitted an HSR request for Chicago-Toledo-Cleveland last time was because of the strong political support for rail coming out of Fort Wayne. Even then, INDOT's (er, the governor's) interest was only lukewarm for this request. If we want train service from Ohio to Chicago, it would be best not to wait on Indiana. But I doubt Ohio will want to foot the entire state share.

 

Also, given what you're saying about CUT...what are your predictions here? A Bond Hill station and then maybe CUT like years and years and years down the road (or track, as it were)?

 

A Bond Hill station is probably OK, if that's what Cincinnati interests want in the interim. To me, coming into Cincinnati, a station at Bond Hill doesn't make any difference to me over Sharonville. I am more disturbed by spending money for a rail corridor (the Oasis Line south of Evendale) that won't be used for the permanent and higher-speed services. I would rather put that money toward capacity enhancements along the route into CUT. But that assumes the FRA and Cincinnati interests would be willing to go along with that. I understand why they want a stop "somewhere" within the city of Cincinnati to start off with.

 

Keep in mind that, if the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority is successful in winning its TRAC request (see http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Submitted%20Applications/2009D08-02.pdf), and funding for the final design, ROW and construction can be had in a timely manner, 3C service to CUT could start as early as 2015.

Even a comparatively modest change (however substantial by federal planning regs) -- such as going to Cincinnati Union Terminal instead of Lunken Field -- will require years of additional time, effort and millions of dollars just for planning money.

 

I find myself becoming more and more apathetic about this rail plan every day. I think I'll just keep up on the Cincy Streetcar developments.

 

I can't help but feel the same way some time.

 

It's really sad when UOers start thinking this way.  This is supposed to be the site of progressive urban thinkers.  If you can't see through the petty, political, backwards small-mindedness of Republicans who will skew anything about this progressive project negative in their efforts to defeat Democrat Ted Strickland while continuing to stroke fat-cat auto and gas interests and fanning the flames of anti-social, often bigoted, Libratarian nihilsim, ... then we're completely lost in the mental thicket.

 

Wow, OK I'm done for the day. No way I can top that......

 

Is "Libratarian nihilism" nihilism for Libras or am I missing something?

 

I spend time on this site trying to build some bridges between right and left on 'progressive urban' ideas because many so-called progressive ideas do a lot to build community and save money (like streetcars and ultimately HSR).  Let's not make the issue one of Republican vs. Democrat because sooner or later it will become a political football instead of a nonpartisan transit solution. 

 

I'm definitely not apathetic on inter-city rail and 3C in particular.  But it's not unfair to judge those who have legitimate concerns with the still murky details of the plan.  KJP and others have done a fabulous job refuting all claims against the project.  Apathy isn't ignorance or disapproval.

 

I can't help but feel the same way some time.

 

Then the opposition is winning.

 

Try fighting this battle for 26 years as I have (BuckeyeB has been fighting it for 40 years).... 

 

Just having any funding or momentum for rail in Ohio is an incredibly huge victory. Once the trains get on the tracks, it opens up all kinds of possibilities for improvement and expansion throughout Ohio. It is why the opposition is fighting us so hard. John knows this from his fight for rail transit in Cincinnati. Once you get something rolling, there is no going back.

 

That's right, I've been at this for 40 years and you know what? The first step is the hardest. Once we overcome the opposition and the PEOPLE see what a train is for themselves, they'll want more. It's not over till it's over.

It should be noted that you've been at it for 40 years because 40 years ago the PEOPLE (or at least their representatives) scrapped the trains we had.  Someone should address the reasons why sometime.

 

Ultimately 3C is a political issue, but we should try to keep it out of the spotlight.  It might not matter who wins in November between Strickland and Kasich, but if you're worried about Kasich's support the smartest thing you could do would be to start a "Republicans for Rail" organization.

I agree it's all about "political realities" and I think there are several of them in play here.

 

It is illegal to use the $400 million no-match grant for higher-speed trains. Even if it weren't, the grant will expire by the time NEPA planning for the faster trains is done in 5-7 years. That assumes the planning starts this year, but not all the funding is in place for that yet.

 

When you say "illegal" do you mean illegal, or do you mean this:

 

Under NEPA, any substantial change to the plan to which the federal agency awarded money will require the project sponsor(s) to hold public hearings and conduct a planning effort to evaluate under terms of NEPA what is needed.

 

That was in response to questons about a different change.  How does "illegal" relate to this NEPA hearing process?  If we want to deal with the CUT issue there's a hearing process, but if we want to deal with the speed issue it's verboten?  Some states received money outright for planning and set-up work to do higher speeds, so it doesn't seem inconceivable that we could at least get a hearing on re-routing some of our funds toward speeding up the speeding up process. 

 

What first felt like a tin ear for market and voter concerns now sounds more like open contempt, and I don't know if that's healthy.  If you want people's backing, if you want their money, don't insult them.  Insulting them includes dismissing their concerns as stupid, yes even when they are stupid.  The customer is always right.  At what point does the customer for this become right?  About anything?  Many critics would be placated with some small, and seemingly legal, updates to the plan.  If hearings are needed OK.

 

And what's this about it'll be at least 5-7 years before this thing speeds up?  If that is the case... I can't even begin to describe how not cool that is.  How many general elections is that?  Holy cow.  Time to drop the conspiracy theories (even if they're true) and start focusing on what the market has to say.  I don't hear it saying no, but I do hear it raising the same concerns over and over again, hoping for different answers.  They hope for different answers because they do in fact want rail, but they think this plan sounds wasteful and ill-conceived.           

What first felt like a tin ear for market and voter concerns now sounds more like open contempt, and I don't know if that's healthy. If you want people's backing, if you want their money, don't insult them. Insulting them includes dismissing their concerns as stupid, yes even when they are stupid. The customer is always right. At what point does the customer for this become right? About anything? Many critics would be placated with some small, and seemingly legal, updates to the plan. If hearings are needed OK.

 

And what's this about it'll be at least 5-7 years before this thing speeds up? If that is the case... I can't even begin to describe how not cool that is. How many general elections is that? Holy cow. Time to drop the conspiracy theories (even if they're true) and start focusing on what the market has to say. I don't hear it saying no, but I do hear it raising the same concerns over and over again, hoping for different answers. They hope for different answers because they do in fact want rail, but they think this plan sounds wasteful and ill-conceived.

 

What the market has to say?  What has the market had to say about privately funded transportation options since 1920?  Absolutely nothing.  Anyone who expects any transportation systems to be privately built without any government subsidy is kidding themselves.

 

Or we can look at it this way.  What is the market saying about U.S. government debt.  Well it's saying some pretty good things.  Both short-term and long-term treasuries are selling at record low rates.  So I guess the market is pleased with the prospect of getting a return on the market's investment in U.S. bonds, despite the low rate, and in turn, that means the market is endorsing the expenditures the U.S. government is undertaking.

 

Now we know what the markets think.  Who speaks for the people then?  Opinion polls?  Maybe, but they don't have any legal standing.  So, why don't we assume for simplicity's sake that the people speak through their elected representatives?

 

It should be noted that you've been at it for 40 years because 40 years ago the PEOPLE (or at least their representatives) scrapped the trains we had. Someone should address the reasons why sometime.

 

Ultimately 3C is a political issue, but we should try to keep it out of the spotlight. It might not matter who wins in November between Strickland and Kasich, but if you're worried about Kasich's support the smartest thing you could do would be to start a "Republicans for Rail" organization.

 

The peoples' "representatives" scrapped the trains thru their blind allegiance to highways. That was a decision made for us, regardless of whatever viewpoint we might have had. I could go into the reasons why, but it's late.

 

 

 

And what's this about it'll be at least 5-7 years before this thing speeds up?  If that is the case... I can't even begin to describe how not cool that is.  How many general elections is that?  Holy cow. 

 

Yes, isn't that terrible how optimistic I am? My friends at the Federal Transit Administration and project team leaders at major transportation engineeering firms who know the 2,000+ page NEPA laws and regs backwards and forwards say a standard planning period for a major, federally funded project averages 10 years. This can vary of course. The environmental documentation needed depends on the extent of proposed change to land use:

 

> Little or no change in land use: Categorical exclusion. Time period: Less than 1 year. Project example: Adding a fourth main track to Cincinnati Union Terminal.

> Small or moderate change in land use: Environmental assessment. Time period: about 1 year. Project example: 3C "Quick Start"

> Moderate to substantial change in land use: environmental impact study. Time period: 18-24 months. Project example: 3C "Higher Speed"

Read more here: http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/pd4document.asp

 

The next phase of planning is preliminary engineering completes about 30 percent of a project's engineering and cost 5-10 percent of a total project's cost. For a small project, this can take less than six months. For the CUT fourth main track, that will take about 6-12 months. For 3C "Quick Start", this is taking about 12 months (about normal). For 3C "Higher Speed" this will also probably take 1-2 years.

 

Then comes final design. The time requirement is similar to PE.

 

Then comes construction -- For the CUT Fourth main, that might be done in a year or two. For 3C "Quick Start", that's two years easy. For 3C "Higher Speed" we're probably talking up to five years but that's just a guess (the property acquisition alone will be as time consuming as the construction). But, like I said, I'm an optimistic guy.

 

Oh, and I almost forgot. Each planning phase costs many millions of dollars. Securing that money is often difficult and time consuming. When the funding cannot be secured within the shelf life of the previous planning phases (five years or so), a project dies. All of the above assumes the funding for the planning work will be found when we want it -- a HUGE assumption. This is why so many projects die -- because their planning can't get funded. It's taking three years (and counting) just to round up all the funding ($1.5 million) for the Alternatives Analysis for the West Shore Corridor commuter rail project in Cleveland.

 

Time to drop the conspiracy theories (even if they're true) and start focusing on what the market has to say.  I don't hear it saying no, but I do hear it raising the same concerns over and over again, hoping for different answers.  They hope for different answers because they do in fact want rail, but they think this plan sounds wasteful and ill-conceived.            

 

Well, young man, it sure sounds like you know exactly what's on people's minds....

The peoples' "representatives" scrapped the trains thru their blind allegiance to highways. That was a decision made for us, regardless of whatever viewpoint we might have had. I could go into the reasons why, but it's late.

 

Who speaks for the people then?  Opinion polls?  Maybe, but they don't have any legal standing.  So, why don't we assume for simplicity's sake that the people speak through their elected representatives?

Supporters need to push every side of the political spectrum however they can.  I keep trying to think of compelling arguments that could sway people on the fence.

KJP - In addition to the symbolism of getting into the boundaries of Cincinnati, a Bond Hill station is substantially more accessible to the entire region than anything at Sharonville. We already have one mass transit station that has weak connections to the rest of the region and relies on a free-flowing I-75 (the airport). We don't need another which Sharonville would be. With the expected construction on 75, a train requires use of 75 will not be remotely accessible by most Hamilton Cty, and especially Cincinnati residents. (the Lunken concept was doomed for a version of those reasons - there is no good connections to the region from the Lunken area).

 

An excellent response to passenger rail critics from the Executive Director of All Aboard Erie....

 

Published: March 05. 2010 12:01AM

Pitzer: High-speed rail defended

By BRIAN PITZER

Contributing writer

 

Dave Martin's confused and misinformed letter of Feb. 18 ("Let's derail high-speed rail") deserves a point-by-point response.

 

Erie County Council Chairman Kyle Foust did not call for a "train czar." Foust was calling for a "champion" to lead the charge for high-speed rail in northwestern Pennsylvania. He seeks someone at either the state or Congressional level to display leadership on this issue.

 

Martin questions the number of high-speed rail miles in Germany and Japan and then makes the unsupported statement that "the technology isn't there." Japan has 1,500 miles of high-speed rail with a top speed of 185 mph. Germany has 800 miles of high-speed rail with an average speed of 156 mph and is building more lines.

 

Full editorial at: http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100305/OPINION08/303059995/-1/OPINION

Once again, it is an election year.  If you want to see passenger trains on the 3C or on any other rail corridor in Ohio, you need to let every candidate and incumbent hear a simple, straightforward message:

 

"If you want my vote, support passenger rail in Ohio."

What the market has to say?  What has the market had to say about privately funded transportation options since 1920?  Absolutely nothing.  Anyone who expects any transportation systems to be privately built without any government subsidy is kidding themselves.

 

Now we know what the markets think.  Who speaks for the people then?  Opinion polls?  Maybe, but they don't have any legal standing.  So, why don't we assume for simplicity's sake that the people speak through their elected representatives?

 

The positions I'm laying out here are unscientific representations of what I see and hear.  I probably don't read any more public commentary, or talk to any more people about this, than any other forumer does.  My observation is that these concerns about speed and practical options upon arrival are a pretty consistent chorus.  It's telling, to me, how universal these concerns are and how they span the political spectrum.  And when it's people I know, and I know they favor public infrastructure investments and rail transit, I'm hesitant to write off their concerns as propaganda from the pavement industry. 

 

Let the people's representatives speak?  I'm not sure we want that at the moment... like it or not, this is a partisan issue and Ohio's balance is precarious.  As it stands now the 3C plan can hardly be called the will of the people, or even of the general assembly, when it's from 1994.  Ohio's economy has taken a dive since then, and arguably the divisions between north and south are more pronounced.  On the good side our downtowns are more active than in 1994.  But sprawl has increased a great deal, and our metro economies are more car-dependent than ever. 

 

That does not mean Ohio shouldn't have intercity rail, nor does it mean we shouldn't get going on it now.  It does, I think, mean that a slow Ohio-only line is about the least marketable option we could possibly come up with.  If this plan is going to be reviewed by the general assembly... and I think it might, at some point in the next couple years... wouldn't we rather be the ones leading that effort, instead of letting the opposition lead it?  For that to happen, the pro-rail side would have to accept that changes are needed, and I don't see that forthcoming. 

Even a comparatively modest change (however substantial by federal planning regs) -- such as going to Cincinnati Union Terminal instead of Lunken Field -- will require years of additional time, effort and millions of dollars just for planning money.

 

I find myself becoming more and more apathetic about this rail plan every day. I think I'll just keep up on the Cincy Streetcar developments.

 

I'm with you.  Since the plan seems to have been intentionally designed to skip Cincinnati proper from the start, I'm done with following 3C until they start including Cincinnati.  If there were any truth in advertising on this plan it would have been called 2C+D.

Intentionally?? Boy, I'm glad I just spent more than a half-hour yesterday explaining why it is so difficult getting to Cincinnati Union Terminal just to have the explanation ignored. Fortunately your council members aren't so quick to throw up their hands. And their efforts just got noticed by the international rail community in their leading industry publication...

 

Cincinnati quest: Use Union Terminal for 3-C service

 

City council members in Cincinnati are trying to identify and secure a terminal for Ohios proposed Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati (3-C) Corridor passenger rail service. In a 6-3 vote, the council has recommended the citys 77-year-old Union Terminal be the site for any such service.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/cincinnati-quest-use-union-terminal-for-3-c-corridor-service.html

Even a comparatively modest change (however substantial by federal planning regs) -- such as going to Cincinnati Union Terminal instead of Lunken Field -- will require years of additional time, effort and millions of dollars just for planning money.

 

I find myself becoming more and more apathetic about this rail plan every day. I think I'll just keep up on the Cincy Streetcar developments.

 

I'm with you. Since the plan seems to have been intentionally designed to skip Cincinnati proper from the start, I'm done with following 3C until they start including Cincinnati. If there were any truth in advertising on this plan it would have been called 2C+D.

 

I disagree totally.  Cincinnati has hills, hills create chokepoints that need to be resolved.  The rest of the state is flat and doesn't have these problems.  The 3C will end up coming to Cincinnati, probably at Union Terminal.  Will it take a few years? Maybe.  But that will give us time to get connecting streetcar service ready so you can step of the train and then take the Cincinnati Streetcar to 54% of jobs in the entire city and many of the major attractions, without ever needing a car.