Unfortunately, I hear a lot of reporters complain that what they write often bears little resemblence to the headline, because a headline editor determines what gets printed on top.  But I think the AP story was a far more objective and fair piece.

I know the cost would be higher but why not put HSR along the interstate systems (ie along I-75).

I don't think there's any question that 3C, at any speed, will dominate Greyhound.

Will 3C have WiFi?  Who can use their laptop while driving on the interstate? No one.

I know the cost would be higher but why not put HSR along the interstate systems (ie along I-75).

 

Where's the room? Look at the Lockland split through Cincinnati, that goofy ass 90 degree turn in Dayton and I-75 doesn't go through Columbus.

I rarely liked the headlines my editors wrote for my articles. They often read just the lede or maybe a couple paragraphs at most. I complained so much that they finally said "Fine, you write them!"

 

That's when I learned how hard headline writing is. Not only do you have to do the article justice, but you can't leave more than two spaces at the end of each line in a headline. Some papers don't want you to leave more than one space at the end. And never, ever end with an exclamation point, question mark or any other punctuation!

 

So sometimes you have to be really creative, and if the creative bug doesn't bite, you have to force something out of you. Every so often though, a creative headline comes from the brain...

 

I wrote an article about a Cleveland suburb enforcing parking meters on Saturdays. A straight headline wasn't working, so I wrote "Carry change on Saturdays" and it fit perfectly.

 

Another headline I just did was for the Ohio Passenger Rail News. It was: "US Railcar loses TIGER, but catches billionaire" -- the TIGER being the federal stimulus Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant and the billionaire being Carl Icahn, majority owner of American Railcar. That headline also fit perfectly, subject-wise and spatially.

 

Every so often a blind squirrel finds an acorn....

I know the cost would be higher but why not put HSR along the interstate systems (ie along I-75).

 

The cost would be higher, so why put HSR along the interstate systems?

From http://ohiosenatedems.blogspot.com

 

OHIO STATEHOUSE NEWSLETTER

MARCH 2010

Senator Turner Thrilled with 3C Passenger Rail Corridor

 

Senator Nina Turner applauded President Barack Obama and his administration for the generous grant Ohio received to begin work on the 3C Rail Corridor.

 

Throughout this process, I was privileged to be able to participate in these most important discussions as the Ranking Minority Member on the Senate Highways and Transportation Committee, and was able to fight to improve the great State of Ohio, Senator Turner commented.

 

Passenger rail will allow us to lessen our states carbon footprint as people begin to forgo their individual cars and climb aboard a passenger train, all the while providing the people of Ohio with new travel options and employment opportunities.

 

Governor Ted Strickland was joined recently at the Ohio Statehouse by U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory, Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman, and Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy, along with state legislators, to announce that Ohio has received $400 million in federal stimulus funding to build a passenger rail line between Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati.

 

This is truly an exciting day for both Cleveland and the State of Ohio. Renewing and revamping passenger rail service in the Buckeye state has the potential to be a major creator of jobs and economic growth in coming years and will position our state for success in the future, said Senator Turner. This is a great first step that will lay the foundation for a brighter and greener tomorrow.

All Aboard Ohio and friends gave a 3C webinar presentation for the media this afternoon. To view the presentation (1.3MB), go to:

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/f74e216b00.pdf

 

You are welcome to share the presentation.

ODOT has released the latest draft TRAC listing.  I posted this on the ODOT Policy Discussion thread, but it pertains to the 3-C (especially the 4th main line rail project for CUT).

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4500.msg471842.html#msg471842

 

TRAC list:  http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Pages/Default.aspx

 

 

I see the Cincinnati streetcar got a very high rating of 84. Hope springs eternal!

I can't access it for some reason. How high is 84, relative to other projects?

 

Man, I love to hear good news about the streetcar project...

 

And, on topic (and since I can't access the page), what is the relevant info to 3C?

 

And, on topic (and since I can't access the page), what is the relevant info to 3C?

 

That the TRAC is recommending $1 million for the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority for the preliminary engineering and environmental assessment of the Cincinnati Fourth Main Rail and Cincinnati Union Terminal project.

 

Try this direct link. See page four:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Documents/2010%20Draft%20TRAC%20List%20(March%2018,%202010)%20with%20Signature.pdf

The 3-C project, Cincy Streetcar, and CUT 4th main line rail project all recieved high rankings.  I think the Cincy streetcar project actually rated highest off all new TRAC projects.  The CUT 4th main line rail project got TRAC funds for the study phase, but it was also ranked highly.

OK, I couldn't make this up for a funny story if I had to.....

 

Next week will be an all-GOP debate on 3C passenger rail at the Columbus Metropolitan Club. Opponents of the project are Terry Casey (Franklin County bigwig) and appointed Ohio Senator Shannon Jones will debate Greater Ohio Director Gene Krebs (a former GOP state legislator) and James Seney (former director of the Ohio Rail Development Commission under Gov. Taft who hatched the Ohio Hub/3C rail project). BTW, there will be a fact-checker at the debate, something which Casey objected to!

 

But that's not the craziest part.... Note the last names of the two critics. Yep, it's Casey/Jones.

 

If you know your railroad history, Casey Jones wasn't a folk hero. He was an irresponsible jackass whose reckless actions in 1900 at Vaughn, MS caused a major train wreck and fatally wounded him. For the real story, read:

 

http://www.watervalley.net/users/caseyjones/casey.htm

 

Might history repeat itself in the coming weeks here in Ohio?

 

And, on topic (and since I can't access the page), what is the relevant info to 3C?

 

That the TRAC is recommending $1 million for the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority for the preliminary engineering and environmental assessment of the Cincinnati Fourth Main Rail and Cincinnati Union Terminal project.

 

Try this direct link. See page four:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Documents/2010%20Draft%20TRAC%20List%20(March%2018,%202010)%20with%20Signature.pdf

Unfortunately, I can't access anything on the DOT site. But I think you guys have supplied enough of a summary, so thanks.

^if you are wondering why they only got $1 million, it is because they only asked for $1 million.

All Aboard Ohio and friends gave a 3C webinar presentation for the media this afternoon. To view the presentation (1.3MB), go to:

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/f74e216b00.pdf

 

You are welcome to share the presentation.

 

Any idea how many people attended?

There were 13 total. Hannah News had pretty decent a story yesterday. Dispatch ran an abrasively juvenile piece calling us "trainiacs." If they practice journalistic fairness, I suppose they'll be calling the opposition cementheads, ass-faults or car potatoes. How mature... And WOSU had a piece this morning in which they quoted Terry "No Fact Check" Casey.

All Aboard Ohio responds to 3C rail project critics

 

BY JAMI KINTON • News Journal • March 19, 2010

 

SHELBY -- The potential start date is still two years

away, but Ken Prendergast, director of All Aboard

Ohio, said the benefits of Ohio's 3C "Quick Start"

Passenger Rail Plan are endless.

 

On Thursday, Prendergast said the proposed system

would connect Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati

with 79 mph passenger trains. It would be part of

President Barack Obama's nationally prioritized

Chicago Hub Network.

 

The proposed initial route is about 256 miles,

funded with $400 million from the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Shelby and Galion

are in contention for a station after the second

phase of the route is complete.

 

Full story at: http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20100319/NEWS01/3190307/1002/All-Aboard-Ohio-responds-to-3C-rail-project-critics

Colleagues-

 

This year’s Environmental Lobby Day at the Statehouse is right around the corner— Wednesday, April 14th. 

 

Your State, Your Voice is this year’s theme.  We’ll focus on three main topics:

 

·        Natural Resource protection and funding.

·        Transportation -- public transit and 3C passenger rail.

·        Clean Energy.

 

Help spread the word!  We are looking for groups to partner with to swell the turnout. Please let us know if you’d like to team up!  Early co-sponsors include:

 

·        Sierra Club

·        All Aboard Ohio

·        Policy Matters Ohio

·        Save Transit Now, Move Ohio Forward!

 

Special group discount:

 

·        $20/person for groups of 3-5

·        $15/person for groups of 6 or more

 

This fun day includes:

 

·        Issue briefing in the morning at the Columbus YWCA

·        Lunch with lawmakers at the Statehouse Atrium

·        Meetings with lawmakers and agency officials

·        Tours of the Statehouse and Ohio Supreme Court

·        After hours "Cocktails & Conversation" reception at the Hyatt on Capitol Square

 

For registration and additional information, visit http://www.theoec.org/LobbyDay2010.htm

 

 

Don’t delay -- register by March 31!

WARREN TRIBUNE CHRONICLE

ODOT chief touts rail line, Valley projects

By RON SELAK JR. Tribune Chronicle

POSTED: March 20, 2010

 

HOWLAND - Ohio's top transportation official knows she's not going to convince all Republican doubters that restoring passenger train service in the Buckeye State is economically sound, but she at least wants to provide an adequate response to their questions.

 

Jolene Molitoris, director of Ohio Department of Transportation, said in a meeting this week with Senate President Bill Harris that she didn't expect to change the mind of the Republican leader who remains skeptical on the plan's viability.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/535042.html

OK, I couldn't make this up for a funny story if I had to.....

 

Next week will be an all-GOP debate on 3C passenger rail at the Columbus Metropolitan Club. Opponents of the project are Terry Casey (Franklin County bigwig) and appointed Ohio Senator Shannon Jones will debate Greater Ohio Director Gene Krebs (a former GOP state legislator) and James Seney (former director of the Ohio Rail Development Commission under Gov. Taft who hatched the Ohio Hub/3C rail project). BTW, there will be a fact-checker at the debate, something which Casey objected to!

 

But that's not the craziest part.... Note the last names of the two critics. Yep, it's Casey/Jones.

 

If you know your railroad history, Casey Jones wasn't a folk hero. He was an irresponsible jackass whose reckless actions in 1900 at Vaughn, MS caused a major train wreck and fatally wounded him. For the real story, read:

 

http://www.watervalley.net/users/caseyjones/casey.htm

 

Might history repeat itself in the coming weeks here in Ohio?

 

With Jim Seney on the pro-rail side, I have confidence in this debate.  He knows how to talk to Republicans on this issue.  I respect Gene Krebs too for his work for Greater Ohio.  When he was in the legislature, however, he opposed rail.  I know he has come around, so between him and Seney, there is a solid pro-rail side to the team. 

 

Funny about Casey/Jones. 

 

What's really sad about this whole debate we have to go through is that this project has gone through the same level of analysis and study that even a highway project has to go through.  Actually, it has gone through MORE analysis when you include things like the economic impact study.  Yet, it has had to endure far more scrutiny. 

Excellent point Gildone.  The critics would make this sound like the project came about when $400-million was dangled out there like bait on a hook. 

 

The fact is that the work began (in earnest) on this project in February of 2008 when (then) newly installed Governor Strickland wrote Amtrak asking them to study the 3C Corridor for start-up service.  What followed was over a year and a half of intense study by a combined team from ORDC and ODOT, with Amtrak's own team analyzing data.  There was also an extensive study done of the current freight capacity of the 3C by the much-respected Woodside Consultants, a ridership and revenue analysis by the internationally respected AECOM and a check and balance study of the impact of the plan on the rail system by Wilbur Smith and Associates.

 

All pointed to the 3C as one of the nation's best, unserved rail corridors for passenger service.  And yet these facts and research are characterized by critics and some politicians as if this information was cooked up on high boil the night before.  They fiddle and debate while gasoline tops $3.00 a gallon.  And what will these same critics and politicians have for answer when gasoline prices take an even bigger bite of all of our wallets and still nothing has been done to develop passenger rail in the state's most densely-populated corridor?

 

 

They fiddle and debate while gasoline tops $3.00 a gallon. And what will these same critics and politicians have for answer when gasoline prices take an even bigger bite of all of our wallets and still nothing has been done to develop passenger rail in the state's most densely-populated corridor?

 

Apparently, the Ohio GOP doesn't want Ohioans to have any sort of freedom from the gas pump.

Why does the GOP hate freedom so much?

Careful, guys. I almost jumped in with a sarcastic comment but changed my mind. Let's not spoil the thread with another round of political jousting.

 

It's OK to report current events relating to 3C and include reference to the political affiliation of the actors, but let's stay with facts and maybe predictions/projections, without starting or joining a partisan war.

As partisan as I am, I agree with the sentiments that we must reach across party lines to Republicans with reasonable questions.  Dems can't simply throw darts at repubs as tempting has it may seem, because they hold the power to kill the bill.  So Dems should seek those Repubs who may be open-minded enough to break free of the orthodox conservatives.  If it turns out those Repubs aren't reasonable, then Dems and 3-C advocates can't be tarred with the argument that they totally stiffled debate trying to ram the train through.

Thanks Robert.  And clvlndr, there are more "orthodox conservatives" out there who prefer rail to highways than you might think.  Lest we forget the opposition to the freeway system that ruined urban neighborhoods and served/still serves as corporate welfare for sprawl.

The late Paul Weyrich for one.

 

Great staff editorial by the Akron Beacon Journal. Worth reading in full....

 

 

Catch the train

 

The Senate president asked the pertinent questions. The state transportation director now has provided solid answers

 

Published on Sunday, Mar 21, 2010

 

When the federal government awarded Ohio $400 million to develop passenger rail in the state, Bill Harris asked questions. The Senate president didn't join Ted Strickland and others in celebrating the news. He wanted to know about the practicality of the endeavor, about those likely to ride, about the schedule and eventual operating costs. He packaged these and other queries into a lengthy memo sent to the governor and Jolene Molitoris, the director of the state Department of Transportation.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/opinions/88753097.html

 

And, on topic (and since I can't access the page), what is the relevant info to 3C?

 

That the TRAC is recommending $1 million for the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority for the preliminary engineering and environmental assessment of the Cincinnati Fourth Main Rail and Cincinnati Union Terminal project.

 

Try this direct link. See page four:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Documents/2010%20Draft%20TRAC%20List%20(March%2018,%202010)%20with%20Signature.pdf

 

If you would like to offer public comment on this draft recommendation, submit them to:

 

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Pages/Default.aspx

 

The TRAC will be accepting public comment on the Draft TRAC List until close of business Monday, May 3, 2010. Please submit your comments via email to: [email protected]

or by mail to: TRAC

Attention: Ed Kagel - TRAC Coordinator

Office of Systems Planning and Program Management

1980 West Broad Street

Columbus, Ohio 43223

From the same reporter who brought you the "Trainiacs" column, now Mr. Nash is having a hard time understanding that this extent of planning and engineering is required of ALL federal funded transportation projects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Consultants and subcontractors are ALWAYS hired to do it -- Engage Communications oversees public involvement, not public relations. Public involvement is required for federally funded projects, including for highway projects, bike paths, transit projects and more. And ALL public agencies farm out this activity to contractors. However, the only thing that's unusual with this rail project is the amount of scrutiny that it is receiving for following the same planning process required of a highway project. Why the double-standard?

 

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/22/copy/rail-spending-heads-down-track.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

 

This shoddy reporting demands YOUR RESPONSE. Here are the two people who need to hear it......

 

Editor Ben Marrison

[email protected]

 

Reporter James Nash

[email protected]

Here is what I sent. Please don't let me speak for you. Send your own response.....

_________

 

Messers. Marrison & Nash:

 

First it was the incredibly demeaning "Trainiacs" column title which warrants an apology to all who desire a little bit of balance to our nation's overdepence on the car. Now Mr. Nash is having a hard time understanding that this extent of planning and engineering, as well as the people who do it, is required of ALL federal funded transportation projects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Consultants and subcontractors are ALWAYS hired to do it because the staff at ALL state departments of transportation is too small to conduct the dozens of federally funded planning efforts underway at any given time. Engage Communications oversees public involvement, not public relations, and that is but one of many companies who do that work in Ohio. Haven't you ever been to a public hearing before? Did you think DOTs organized them and produced the materials on display? They don't. Public involvement is required for federally funded projects, including for highway projects, bike paths, transit projects and more. And ALL public agencies in Ohio and other states farm out this activity to contractors. However, the only thing that's unusual with this rail project is the amount of scrutiny that it is receiving for following the same planning process and procedures and hiring required of a highway project. Why the double-standard?

 

I think you all need a primer on how a federally funded transportation project is conducted in this nation, especially rail projects. The reporting I'm seeing from your paper on this story is bush league, abrasive for the sake of being abrasive, and more interested in being a stenographer for the reactionaries than taking the time to learn first to develop a context for why something is happening.

 

The only people who are suffering from it are your readers.

 

KJP

From the same reporter who brought you the "Trainiacs" column, now Mr. Nash is having a hard time understanding that this extent of planning and engineering is required of ALL federal funded transportation projects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Consultants and subcontractors are ALWAYS hired to do it -- Engage Communications oversees public involvement, not public relations. Public involvement is required for federally funded projects, including for highway projects, bike paths, transit projects and more. And ALL public agencies farm out this activity to contractors. However, the only thing that's unusual with this rail project is the amount of scrutiny that it is receiving for following the same planning process required of a highway project. Why the double-standard?

 

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/22/copy/rail-spending-heads-down-track.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

 

This shoddy reporting demands YOUR RESPONSE. Here are the two people who need to hear it......

 

Editor Ben Marrison

[email protected]

 

Reporter James Nash

[email protected]

 

from this story....."State Sen. Jon Husted, R-Kettering, another leading rail skeptic, said the studies all are biased toward the transportation agency's desired conclusion: that rail would be a viable proposition in Ohio."

 

OF COURSE, any study that goes against your position is biased.  Never mind the solid reputations of the firms that did the studies.

The late Paul Weyrich for one.

 

 

So rare a bird, he should have been in a museum.

I don't think that's what Harris and Husted were saying.  Just like real estate appraisers, rail consultants who give out low projections may see their revenue dry up in a hurry.  It's not ideological bias, it's an economic conflict of interest.  Kinda like lenders and real estate appraisers.  The paying party wants certain numbers... and those numbers are selected before the consultant/appraiser is.  A consultant/appraiser who disagrees with those numbers will simply not be selected.  This is why I take a lot of these official reports (on various issues) with a grain of salt.  The neutral 3rd party is rarely neutral. 

 

These are legitimate questions and they deserve more respect than scorn.  I am increasingly troubled by the us vs. them mentality on the pro-rail side.  We're the ones trying to make big changes, so we're the ones needing to earn broad acceptance for our views.  That isn't accomplished by attacking people who raise valid concerns.  I really hope there's a change in tone before we get into the full swing of the general election. 

327... what you are failing to recognize is that all of the information gathered is part of the federally-required NEPA (National Environmmetal Protection Act) process that is done for ANY transportation project.  Engineering conusltants are part of that process in order to provide a more dispassionate analysis.  Implying the the "paying party" somehow puts the fix in to get certain results is nonsense.

 

I can point you to studies done for other passenger rail projects where the numbers just didn't justify the investment.  A proposed Amtrak route between Springfield, Missouri and St. Louis is a good example.  The distance is similar BTW to the 3C, although the population is less dense.  The consultants who worked with Amtrak's own planning people found out that the ridership simply was not great enough to justify the infrastructure investment in the corridor.

 

I point to this example only to show that these studies don't always conclude in a favor able outcome.

 

The critics are now taking the ODOT/ORDC request for $25-million completely out of context: implying that this is somehow "another study" and also not recognizing that this is a REQUIRED part of the process of advancing any major transportation project.  I would ask if you or any of them have raised the same issues about a major highway interchange project or a runway extension at an airport?  The answer is no, because these projects have to go through the same level of scrutiny in the planning and engineering phases....just as the 3C is going through now.

 

 

That's what makes me so furious. All of this is required for highway projects, but the critics are pretending this is somehow special or different for the rail project. The Dispatch is complicit in spreading this lie for the sole purpose of killing the project by killing required planning. And this is planning needed to get the skeptics the answers they have requested!

 

Ohio has ranked in the bottom five states in new job creation while our poverty rates rise. Much of this is due to a lack of affordable access to opportunities. We in Ohio spend one-third of our costs of living on transportation, compared to one-fourth on housing. That needs to be reversed by offering more affordable, inclusive transportation choices -- not preventing their development! This state has a decision to make:  change and join the 21st century economy or stay the course and watch us become the Mississippi of the North.

 

If the Dispatch and other critics of trains and transit, smart growth, etc. want to stunt Ohio's transition from the failing status quo, then let them be remembered for their complicity in the demise of Ohio. Those of us who want a more progressive, innovative state can always go live somewhere else.

327... what you are failing to recognize is that all of the information gathered is part of the federally-required NEPA (National Environmmetal Protection Act) process that is done for ANY transportation project. 

 

I fully recognize that.  It's been explained here before.  And whether or not it's been explained to Bill Harris, it doesn't sound like the root of his concerns.  Harris and Husted keep mentioning the "PR" spending not because they're childish or incompetent.  It's because this process has focused on making people agree to a certain plan, without compromise, while so little respect has been shown toward anyone's public input. 

 

As far as comparing 3C to highway projects, major changes have been made to some prominent highway plans around here (Shoreway, Innerbelt) based on public input, or based on knowledge that wasn't available when the plans were initially developed.  Is 3C similarly open to change? 

 

It seems to me that this is what Harris and Husted were getting at.  Seems like they're wanting to see more openness to public input, and less aggressive promotion of this plan as being the only answer.  I'm aware that their party line is far from pro-rail, but I'm also aware that their party doesn't oppose rail nearly as strongly as, say, abortion.  The fact that 3C is having this kind of trouble at the controlling board, after such a big federal grant, suggests that something about it smells funny to these guys.  That, or it suggests that they smell a winning election issue here, like gay marriage in 2004.

 

Name another major public project for which operating funds have yet to be approved, but absolutely no changes to the plan can even be discussed.  We're going to the controlling board asking for money to operate trains, for the first time in ages... and we're telling them, and the legislature, and the entire populace that if they have questions about this plan it's only because they're uneducated.  That's what comes off so special and different about this project... not the fact that it requires EPA studies.  I think the current promotional strategy is so insulting it could sink the democratic ticket statewide.

We need to look at the I-70/I-71 split in downtown Columbus. The public meetings on that first started seven or eight years ago when I was still the transportation writer at the Dispatch. The meetings and preliminary planning have gone for years -- and still resulted in the disruptive frontage roads that the people for years spoke out against -- at a cost of millions (somebody ought to verify that figure). This is for one part of one city, yet the planning and engineering go on for many millions, and the construction will be over $500 million.

 

Compare that with $400 million for a rail line that crosses the state connecting the three largest cities plus the sixth largest city.

That's a good point, or the $500+ million just to rebuild and widen what, 15 miles of I-75 here in Cincinnati?  Then there's the Brent Spence Bridge, which is close to that number just for the main span, let alone all the other widening and rebuilding that's planned to go along with it.  Instead of crying about the costs and studies and speeds, everyone should be applauding how much of a bargain it is! 

 

I fully recognize that.

 

 

Uh, no you don't. If you did, you wouldn't have said this...

 

It's been explained here before. And whether or not it's been explained to Bill Harris, it doesn't sound like the root of his concerns. Harris and Husted keep mentioning the "PR" spending not because they're childish or incompetent.

 

It's because they consider 3C trains a political wedge issue. Their stance isn't based on the value of trains or the lack of value. It's because they see 3C as Strickland's version of Obama's health care proposal, and they believe they can gain political points from their constituents who have chosen not to understand this issue because if they did, it would cause them to agree with and support Strickland. That isn't going to happen.

 

It's because this process has foucsed on making people agree to a certain plan, without compromise, while little respect has been shown toward anyone's public input.

 

Because the facts support developing this rail service. If the critics ever left Ohio to experience and understand what other states and nations are doing with rail, then there is only one conclusion for them to reach. That is not for consultants to reach. That is not what they do. They cultivate and develop information for a range of options for their clients to decide whether and how it makes sense for them to move foward, or not move forward. Since most rail services have exceeded their ridership projections, I would say consultants have been pretty conservative and unbiased.

 

As far as comparing 3C to highway projects, major changes have been made to some prominent highway plans around here (Shoreway, Innerbelt) based on public input, or based on knowledge that wasn't available when the plans were initially developed. Is 3C similarly open to change? It seems to me that this is what Harris and Husted were getting at. Seems like they're wanting to see more openness to public input, and less aggressive promotion of this plan as being the only answer.

 

Questions are welcomed. And the public input process was already held for the first phase of planning. Numerous changes were made to the original plan based on that input. Some at ODOT wanted the trains to go through Akron, but the consultants' data didn't support that route option. Some at ODOT thought that a Cincinnati station by the Boathouse made the most sense. Two public hearings resulted in the route being cut back to Lunken. Now additional public input is suggesting that the route be cut back further to save money for a CUT routing. Yes, it can be changed, but to do so without additional public hearings and FRA concurrence is illegal.

 

Name another major public project for which operating funds have yet to be approved, but absolutely no changes to the plan can even be discussed. We're going to the controlling board asking for money to operate trains, for the first time in ages... and we're telling them, and the legislature, and the entire populace that if they have questions about this plan it's only because they're uneducated. That's what comes off so special and different about this project... not the fact that it requires EPA studies. I think the current promotional strategy is so insulting it could sink the democratic ticket statewide.

 

I can't help you if you feel insulted. But when you've stated something inaccurately and were corrected, you persisted as if only for the sake of arguing. Then the person who corrected you came down on you harder. Sometimes I had to do that. Sometimes other people involved in other aspects of this project had to do that. I hope others here don't feel insulted. I think most people here have asked some very good questions. I also recognize that I and others have become emotionally involved in this project because we've been working on it for so long and have come to respect people who are involved in other aspects of it. So when we hear unfounded critiques of certain well-respected people or well-founded practices, you can be sure we're going to get angry and we're not going to let those critiques stand unchallenged.

No need to worry about how I feel.  I'm on your side, and I was talking about how the other side might feel.  And I'm not sure any of the questions I've raised have been resolved, but that's not the issue either.  You know I want 3C to get built.  But I'm seeing both sides talking past each other.

 

We agree that this is being set up as a political wedge issue.  Public input, once completed, usually doesn't result in anything controversial enough to be used a wedge issue.  But here it has.  The majority of the state had never heard of this project until the federal funds were awarded.  The assertion that public input has already closed is... unfortunate at this time. 

But I'm seeing both sides talking past each other. Public input, once completed, usually doesn't result in anything controversial enough to be used a wedge issue.

 

The facts:

 

The 3C plan was chosen from a list of alternatives.

The plan went through a public input process.

This is the plan that was left standing.

 

There is a side that has worked on the issue and presents facts, and there is a side that talks past them because they don't like the conversation.

The assertion that public input has already closed is... unfortunate at this time.

 

It's not closed. If the $25 million is approved, the project will enter a Tier 2 environmental assessment of the refined, final plan. As part of that, there will be several public hearings at various locations along the route -- probably in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati again.

Here is what I sent. Please don't let me speak for you. Send your own response.....

_________

 

Messers. Marrison & Nash:

 

First it was the incredibly demeaning "Trainiacs" column title which warrants an apology to all who desire a little bit of balance to our nation's overdepence on the car. Now Mr. Nash is having a hard time understanding that this extent of planning and engineering, as well as the people who do it, is required of ALL federal funded transportation projects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Consultants and subcontractors are ALWAYS hired to do it because the staff at ALL state departments of transportation is too small to conduct the dozens of federally funded planning efforts underway at any given time. Engage Communications oversees public involvement, not public relations, and that is but one of many companies who do that work in Ohio. Haven't you ever been to a public hearing before? Did you think DOTs organized them and produced the materials on display? They don't. Public involvement is required for federally funded projects, including for highway projects, bike paths, transit projects and more. And ALL public agencies in Ohio and other states farm out this activity to contractors. However, the only thing that's unusual with this rail project is the amount of scrutiny that it is receiving for following the same planning process and procedures and hiring required of a highway project. Why the double-standard?

 

I think you all need a primer on how a federally funded transportation project is conducted in this nation, especially rail projects. The reporting I'm seeing from your paper on this story is bush league, abrasive for the sake of being abrasive, and more interested in being a stenographer for the reactionaries than taking the time to learn first to develop a context for why something is happening.

 

The only people who are suffering from it are your readers.

 

KJP

 

 

I sent this to the comments section for the article in question:

 

Is what Nash wrote an article or an editorial? It sure looks like the latter! This guy not only used a negative headline, he didn't do his homework. If he had, he would have found out that what these consultants are doing is REQUIRED by federal law. This isn't some junket for starving consultants.

 

This from the guy who calls rail supporters "trainiacs" in his blog. What's next? Cuckoo for Choo-Choos? Train huggers? Hey, fair's fair and if you are going to use names like that for us, then start calling those who want roads "Cementheads."

 

Talk about lazy journalism. Nash needs an education on his subject matter and the Dispatch should think about the damage stupid stories like this does to their reputation.

 

Here's a suggestion to Mr. Nash: Take the time to learn the subject from all angles and get ALL the facts before you put something in print. Talk to ODOT and the FRA. You might learn something. Oh, and keep the anti-rail negativism out of what should be unbiased reporting.

 

And here's a suggestion the Dispatch: Find someone who actually KNOWS something about transportation and monitor what they write. They speak for you, remember. You used to have a very good transportation reporter, but he's been gone for several years now. What we have now are people who do not know the subject and don't do their homework. We deserve better than this from "Ohio's Greatest Home Newspaper."

 

To the rest of you out there ranting about the trains, where is your indignation over the $1.2 billion we subsidize Ohio roads with every year? You are trying to swat the railroad flea while ignoring the highway elephant.

 

 

 

The thing that bothers me so much about Sen. Harris's comments is that he asked a lot of probing questions, which is legitimate, but then, when he got detailed answers, said he disagreed with them.  So, basically, confronted with evidence and answers, he seems to have decided to stick with his own, unsubstantiated gut feeling. He offers no evidence or research for his opinion, or for his rejection of the answers he received. How is this man in such a position of power?

I posted on the Dispatch article.

 

Buckeyechuck wrote:

All paid for everytime people fuel in their vehicles.

 

"Dear Ohio. Your federal government has devised a transportation system for you. It will only cost you $15 billion dollars. A year. For the fuel."

 

Oops, that's reality.

 

Money is money. You make it sound like just because people choose to do something on the open market that it's somehow intrinsically less expensive than a tax. Yeah, you pay for Ohio's roads, to the tune of $200 a month in gas. As a nation we should be looking for the most efficient mix of transportation. And news flash: We *subsidize* roads in Ohio, as in, a billion tax dollars a year for them above and beyond the gas tax.

>How is this man in such a position of power?

 

That's how politics works. 

Another major Ohio daily weighs in on a positive note:

 

Editorial: ODOT answers on 3C worth hearing

By the Dayton Daily News | Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 04:02 AM

 

After Ohio won $400 million in stimulus money to build a passenger train system from Cincinnati to Cleveland via Dayton and Springfield, state Senate President Bill Harris, a Republican, said he still wasn’t convinced Ohio should proceed.

 

He noted that the state will, near as anybody can tell, be responsible for operational expenses, which are projected at $17 million a year more than the system will bring in, which can’t actually be known for sure. And, of course, the state budget is already in terrible shape.

 

His view matters, because the federal decision didn’t end the debate.

 

Full editorial at: http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/opinion/entries/2010/03/23/editorial_odot_answers_on_3c_w.html?cxtype=feedbot