All, another unfortunate and inaccurate piece about 3C Corridor has been written by the Plain Dealer's Brent Larkin:

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/03/brent_larkin_ohio_administrati.html __._,_.___

 

Ohio travelers, business persons, labor and others are encouraged to Mr. Larkin ASAP and be sure to copy "letters to the editor." Mr. Larkin's e-mail address is: [email protected]

 

For letters to the editor information, please see:

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Three%20sample%20letters%20to%20editors.pdf

 

Cleveland Plain Dealer

Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Plain Dealer, 1801 Superior Ave., Cleveland, OH 44114.

Fax: 216-999-6209

E-mail: http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/letter-to-editor/

 

The sample letters to the editor are intended to give you ideas on writing your own. Please do NOT submit the sample letters word-for-word.

All, another unfortunate and inaccurate piece about 3C Corridor has been written by the Plain Dealer's Brent Larkin:

 

Funny that he didn't mention that part of the high cost of the California HSR is the cost of complying with California Earthquake codes, a problem that shouldn't exist in Ohio.

 

What he didn't mention about California is they've spent $2 billion in capital and operating funds over the past 20 years to grow conventional-speed train services to the point where the jump to light speed becomes feasible.

Some time soon, we will see a tombstone, which reads:

 

"HERE LIES OHIO, BURIED UNDER THE WEIGHT OF NEGATIVISM"

 

:cry:

So how did Larkin come into this CSX-ORDC agreement? Was he bored, just sitting around and wondering "I wonder what's in that agreement?" Of course not. Someone fed it to him.

 

Second question: if this is such a violation of federal law, why did he not contact the Federal Railroad Administration for their view?

 

I don't want to get bogged down in these tit-for-tat exchanges with the highway lobby through their third-party mercenaries in the GOP or sympathetic media types. Instead, we need to keep an eye on the big picture stuff of why we're pursuing 3C "Quick Start" and the Ohio Hub System.

A few points Larkin seems to miss....

 

1. By using California as a comparison he is (either out of ignorance or design) forgets that what California is building is a 200 MPH HSR rail line that requires a totally separate ROW.

 

2. (AS KJP pointed out) California voter twice passed statewide bond issues to incrementally build a conventional speed 79 MPH system.  They would have never passed the Nov. 2008 bond issue for 200 MPH HSR had it not been for setting the stage both politically and culturally with what has been a highly successful conventional system.

 

3. 110 MPH service can still be within the same corridor, although separated from freight ina sealed corridor.

 

4. (Contrary to both Larkin & 327) a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not a "contract".  It is what it is.... a signed agreement of understanding.  Contracts for access to the corridor and the conditions under which that access can be gained are still to be negotiated with the freight railroads (CSX, NS and Rail America).  So....there is nothing written in stone as to what higher speeds beyond 79 MPH can be accomodated.

 

5.to 327... the FRA isn't forcing anyone to do anything.  What they will do if the money isn't spent is simply take it back and give it to another deserving states

The MOU distinction is something but the issue remains.  Are we saying it's to be taken as BS because it's an MOU?  Non-binding is different from never happened.  If conditions are still to be negotiated with the freight railroads, it seems significant that this figure has been agreed upon.  It contributes to a sense that in order to achieve 110 mph service, we don't upgrade 3C, we practically rebuild it.  Just how much speed do we expect the freight RRs to accomodate?  Whatever the nature of Larkin's document it's a live question.  I really don't get the impression that this ARRA project was meant to spur another decade or two of the Amtrak approach for anybody.

The MOU distinction is something but the issue remains. Are we saying it's to be taken as BS because it's an MOU? Non-binding is different from never happened. If conditions are still to be negotiated with the freight railroads, it seems significant that this figure has been agreed upon. It contributes to a sense that in order to achieve 110 mph service, we don't upgrade 3C, we practically rebuild it.

 

Not at all. It is very likely the case that conditions are such that in some sections of the ROW there will be the need for passenger service to run in a sealed corridor and in others, not. For example, an intermodal yard will likely be bypassed via separate track and there may be some curves or crossings where this is necessary as well.

 

The MOU states, simply, that a separate agreement will be needed for service exceeding 90 MPH, not that such a agreement will never be reached. Nor does it state what would be needed to get agreement.

 

View the MOU for what it is, a statement of conditions to which both parties are agreed. That sounds a lot more than a glass half full than a glass half empty.

 

Dayton is an obvious stop.  But think about why Riverside was also chosen.  It is literally on the doorstep of:

 

1. Wright-Patterson AFB: the largest single-site employer in the the state.

2. Museum of the United States Air Force: over 1.5-million visitors a year.

 

Riverside also has a detailed , mixed-use development plan for the area around its station site.  It is a major plan that includes hotels, restaurants, office, residential and retail.

 

You can scratch reason 1.  Reason 2, however, is a valid justification.  The Musuem, combined with Riversides' plan, would make this a viable destination for leisure travel using 3-C.

 

 

The alignment between Dayton and somewhere beyond Fairborn lends itself to a sealed corridor.  There are already grade seperations at some key points.  I figure perhaps three additional grade seperations (Findlay Street + two in Fairborn) would be needed to completely segregate the alignement from auto traffic. There is also spare room for additional ROW if they decide to create a seperate track for true TGV style high speed rail.

Some time soon, we will see a tombstone, which reads:

 

"HERE LIES OHIO, BURIED UNDER THE WEIGHT OF NEGATIVISM"

 

:cry:

 

You're right about that.

 

  "I don't want to get bogged down in these tit-for-tat exchanges with the highway lobby through their third-party mercenaries in the GOP or sympathetic media types."

 

  KJP, you crack me up sometimes. That's like saying "I don't want to criticize my stupid, illiterate, lazy friend here."

 

You can scratch reason 1.  Reason 2, however, is a valid justification.  The Musuem, combined with Riversides' plan, would make this a viable destination for leisure travel using 3-C.

 

 

Why so quick to scratch reason #1? Are you aware that WPAFB is going to see a wave of retirements in the coming years? I forget the percentage of the staff retiring but it's significant. Passenger rail can be a huge help to them (and they recognized that) by:

 

> expanding their "labor catchment" area so they can draw potential employees from as far away as Cincinnati and Columbus;

> increasing the attractiveness of the region to younger employees who prefer areas that offer alternatives to driving;

> promoting opportunities for collaboration with research facilities, institutions of higher learning and private contractors (GE Aviation is located near the Sharonville station; GE and the WPAFB have expressed interest in 3C trains linking each other).

 

None of this matters however when you're trying to unseat a governor who accepted $400 million from the pet program of a president who is hated by your political base. After each question is answered by ODOT, it is rejected outright and another one is conjured. This isn't about infrastructure, jobs, economic development or affordable mobility regardless what the price of gas is. The only the job resulting from the 3C project that matters to the opposition is the one they hope to win in November.

^ Still not quite sure how this service is going to mesh with these trip types. Museum day trips...commuting... The headways aren't frequent enough.

Museum day trips make some sense, and people going to various cities for college sports and otherwise.  Commuting however, would be extremely expensive.  That's probably as it should be too. 

My letter to Larkin.  [email protected]

 

Mr. Larkin,

 

It was very  disappointing to see your inaccurate and poorly researched piece on the 3C Corridor project today.  What you and other journalists keep failing to do is look at what about a dozen other states are doing with passenger rail.  Every single one of them is pursuing a building block approach to providing passenger rail service.  Ohio is merely following a highly successful model that has already proven itself a dozen times over.  The Plain Dealer keeps ignoring this important part of the story.  Even the example you provide-- California-- has been successfully pursuing the same building block approach.  They have been funding what you snidely refer to as "snail rail" for years-- services which have been highly successful. 

 

I don't understand why the Plain Dealer (and other newspapers in Ohio) either fail to or refuse to look at what's going on in other states with respect to passenger rail development.  Are you so biased against the 3C yourselves that you just don't want to look beyond the opposition's talking points?  The approach you have taken with your latest piece is doing a grave dis-service to the issue by failing to tell Ohioans the whole story.

 

For the sake of the Plain Dealer's journalistic integrity, it's time for the paper to start questioning the motives of opponents of the 3C instead of constantly bashing the advocates. Let's start with the Ohio Republican Party.  You are apparently unaware that the Ohio Hub plan, which the 3C start-up is part of, was conceived under a Republican administration.  And that if it hadn't been for the planning done under that Republican administration, Governor Strickland would not have been able to apply for the stimulus money for the project.  Now the Republicans are suddenly against it even though the 3C and all of the Ohio Hub corridors were always assumed to start out with a few frequencies at 79 mph, then increase in speed and frequency from there.  Since the initial average speed of the 3C is right in the middle of what other states started out with, the Ohio GOP's constant harping on that is nothing more than a distraction.  If anyone is being disingenuous, it's not Governor Strickland.  Could it be that the Ohio GOP just doesn't want this project, which they created, to succeed on a Democrat's watch?

 

How about the Ohio Contractor's Association (OCA)?  These are the folks who make their money building roads, but did you know that the OCA was for it before they were against it?  See attached letter.  In 2005, they sent a letter to Senator Ray Miller in support of the Ohio Hub.  In that letter they said:  "Ohio is in need of rail utilization capabilities comparable to its highway transportation system".  See attached.  Don't take my word for it.  The letter is available to anyone as it is a public record.  Why have they changed their stance now that this project is close to becoming a reality?

 

I strongly suggest that you bring some honesty to your coverage of this issue by traveling to a couple of red states that fund rail corridors like Missouri, North Carolina, or Oklahoma.  Ride their 40-some mph average speed trains (recent infrastructure improvements in North Carolina have raised the average speed from the 40s to about 50mph).  You could talk to passengers, GOP politicians in those states, business leaders, local government officials and chambers of commerce in the cities where the trains stop.  You'd be surprised to find out how much of an economic benefit 79 mph trains are.

 

Now specifically regarding one of the points in your piece.  You wrongly claim the following language is unambiguous:

 

"Any operating speeds for passenger rail service in excess of 90 mph will require a separated and sealed corridor for the passenger services constructed at least 30 feet offset from existing freight train tracks unless otherwise mutually agreed between the parties."

In no way does this state that110 mph service is not going to be allowed by the freight railroads.  It only means that to get to those speed additional requirements and revised agreements are needed.  Yet, you twisted this around to make it look like officials in the Strickland administration are lying.  Had you actually taken the time to talk to the entity that will soon be preparing the FRA-required study for 110 mph service -- the Ohio Rail Development Commission-- you would have discovered just how wrong your assertion is.  That study is to commence this summer. You would also find out that ORDC already has a rough idea of the cost:  As I understand it, it's an additional $800 million over and above the $400 million for the start-up service.  That's $1.2 billion total for the start-up and upgrades to 110 mph.  That's Less than the cost of reconfiguring the I-71/I-70 central interchange in Columbus (which ODOT is preparing to do).

 

If anyone is being dishonest, it's you.  I expect better journalism out of the former editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Gas is approaching $3 a gallon again and it will likely go higher in the coming years.  What are you and other opponents going to tell Ohioans when gas hits $4 or $5 dollars a gallon or worse (which increasingly likely in the coming years) and you all prevented the state from providing an alternative?

 

 

Apologies for the at-times sharp tone of this message, but the low-quality journalism that has been occurring on the 3C project has become frustrating to me. Me and my family need options to the gas pump and forking over more and more of our hard earned money to the oil companies and countries that don't like us.  I would use the 3C several times a year for both business and pleasure.  I just want Ohio to follow the same proven and successful model with passenger rail that other states have used.

 

Best Regards,

^ Still not quite sure how this service is going to mesh with these trip types. Museum day trips...commuting... The headways aren't frequent enough.

 

Don't worry about that at this stage. The most important issue right now is to get passenger trains on the 3C tracks. Why?

 

Consider the Cascades Corridor... It started out with two daily trains in the 1970s and 80s. The states of Washington and Oregon first sponsored an expansion of service in 1993, first to three daily round trips, then four, now five. It added en route stations, laid more tracks and upgraded signal systems.

 

Because more departures and stations were available, people began using the intercity trains for commuting -- especially into Seattle. It provided motivation for the creation of the Sounder commuter rail service that started with two weekday round trips between Seattle and Tacoma.

 

In 1992, Seattle's neglected King Street Station saw just eight trains per day.

 

Today, between the Cascades, Amtrak long-distance trains and the Sounder commuter trains, a renovated King Street Station is served by 40 weekday passenger trains and has become a magnet for redevelopment on the south end of downtown Seattle. The International District was amazing success story of recovery from blight even before the light-rail link came to it. Now with both stations a block apart, there is wonderful urban dynamic in that area that was not there before the 1990s.

 

King Street Station then....

http://www.seattlepi.com/transportation/30545_king09.shtml

 

King Street Station today (Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus or Cleveland tomorrow?):

 

Denver's Union Station will soon be as busy. Miami's and Dallas' already are. So is San Diego's, Oakland's and Portland's. Lesser stations in St. Louis, Detroit and Milwaukee are many times more active than Ohio's busiest station -- Toledo. This is what I mean by the evolution of passenger rail services. It will happen in Ohio ...... if it has a starting point from which to evolve.

I don't necessarily see Air Force Museum day-trips using 3-C, although that could work.  I see overnight trips to the Museum with the vistors staying in that proposed hotel complex.  This would still require a shuttle bus from the hotel/station area to the Museum proper.

 

The base draws from the immediate area..mainly Greene and Montgomery County.... so would not be a user of 3-C as a commuter run. 

 

The base draws from the immediate area..mainly Greene and Montgomery County.... so would not be a user of 3-C as a commuter run.  

 

WPAFB officials obviously don't feel the same as you do. They're not talking about where they draw from now. They're talking about after the coming retirements.

^The Seattle example sounds quite applicable. The commuter possibility between Dayton and Cincinnati job centers is immediately apparent. With future frequency increases of course, and especially a bump up to 110mph.

 

Most certainly a well developed Riverside station area would be a nice stop. It just makes me hesitate to see too many stops at this phase between the major destinations. But I won't beat a dead horse!

 

*****

 

I'm actually the proud owner of a "reason" to take 3C service now. I have an anatomy lab once a week in Columbus for 4 hours. I've already driven it once, and a 5 hour round trip train ride would be HEAVEN compared to the 3.5 hour drive. I could do all my studying for the week. It's *usable time.* Driving is *wasted time.*

 

I suppose I could take the bus. But have you ever tried doing anything productive on a bus?

WPAFB officials obviously don't feel the same as you do. They're not talking about where they draw from now. They're talking about after the coming retirements.

 

The issue of getting to he base from the station is the same, actually a bit worse, as getting to the museum from the station, in that some form of shuttle bus is going to have to be run from the base to the station...probably multiple runs since the base is geographically dispersed.  There is one cantonment area close to the station, which is visible from the museum. But there are an additional two catonement areas further east, 3 and 5 miles from the Riverside station...this would be a six mile round trip bus run.

 

So to commute in there is the drive to the Sharonville, or Coumbus station, a train ride, then an additional shuttle bus ride...a three-step commute.  I'm not sure how reaslitic this is, but might be if we are entering the peak oil era, or an era of rationing and exceptionaly high gas prices. 

 

 

 

Again, what speeds do we expect to get out of the freight RRs?  Specifically.  Either we have chosen to plan for this or we have chosen to ignore it.  If not the 90 from the MOU, what speed are we expecting?  On one hand all of this is set in stone... on the other hand, major issues (like top speed) have yet to be negotiated.  Both can't be entirely true.  What if the RRs balk at a speed increase, somewhere down the line?  Clearly they felt they needed to preserve the option.  Then we really are in conflict with the federal program.

 

At this point we need to see a breakdown of exactly how 3C gets from here to 110 mph, mile by mile.  Anyone who thinks 327 is the only guy harping on speed is a psycho living in a dreamworld.  Speed is THE issue for 3C thus far, and the only answer we keep hearing is "Amtrak lied" or "that's not a real contract" or even worse "who cares about speed?  You shoudn't."  You do not tell the market what to care about... it tells you.   

 

If we want to compare with Seattle/Portland... then the goal should not be to get trains rolling in Ohio ASAP, the goal should be to determine what aspects of Seattle and Portland paved the way for rail's success.  Maybe "paved" is the wrong word there.  Anyway, we're putting the cart (intercity) before the horse (local transit). 

 

Seattle and Portland are not valid comparables when talking about Ohio.  Riders in those cities can accomplish much more in a shorter period upon arrival.  These cities are known throughout the land for being progressive and having solid mass transit programs.  Ohio's relative lack of transit means either local transit should be addressed first, or that intercity needs to sweeten the deal with speed. 

 

Speeds that worked well enough in coastal metros are not similarly useful in Ohio.  At this point, only 3C's biggest supporters seem confused about that.  Everybody else is on the same page.  Interest in high speed rail is high, interest in low speed rail is low.  This money was intended for high speed rail projects.  I've never heard of a project where the priorities of the feds funding it, and of the people voting on it, were considered so meaningless.

Seattle and Portland are not valid comparables when talking about Ohio

 

Portland and Cincinnati are remarkably similar in many respects.

 

Seattle and Portland are not valid comparables when talking about Ohio

 

Portland and Cincinnati are remarkably similar in many respects.

 

 

Granted... but we're talking about a particular aspect as to which they are, presently, two wildly different places.  There's no "oh come on, let's at least put one single streetcar in Portland" movement. 

Portland was an old mill (logging) town with a quiet central business district that had seen better days in the 1970s. Nice turnaround! Seattle used a sh!tload of coffee (along with tech) to wake up from the fact it could offer the nation more than just an old port and a big Boeing plant. Hopefully Ohioans will wake up to the importance of their cities -- 3C is an important piece of that as it changes the auto-only culture. The OCA is very aware of this.

 

About speed, the time savings gained from going above 90 mph to 110 mph are minimal, but the expense is disproportionately larger. Perhaps the only exception is the 58-mile section between Columbus and Galion which sees maybe 5-10 daily freight trains. Those could relocated to a parallel CSX line south from Marion through the west side of Delaware. CSX was ready to do this 10 years ago to cede its 3C right of way to COTA so it could build the North Corridor LRT next to it and the state could use the 3C track for intercity rail. It would leave a largely freight-free route (except local freight service could be operated at night) that could be upgraded to 110 mph without having to build a passenger-only track offset by 30 feet from the active freight track. But such an offset is not a legal requirement. It's a matter that's subject to negotiation on a case-by-case basis -- a point Larkin overlooked.

Normally, I would put this in the "What other states are doing thread..." but given Mr. Larkin's column over the weekend, I thought this needed to placed here. Please share this with others as to what a more enlightened newspaper staff editorial has to say.....

 

Even slowly, train needs to roll

 

The issue: Passenger rail plan takes shape.

Where we stand: South Hampton Roads needs a chance to show that it is a viable market.

The Virginian-Pilot

March 28, 2010

 

Some die-hard advocates of high-speed rail to South Hampton Roads sniff at suggestions that the region put its energy behind conventional passenger service.

 

...Federal officials are overwhelmed with requests for money to construct high-speed corridors around the country. A key consideration is whether demand exists to justify billions in infrastructure investments.

 

That leaves South Hampton Roads trapped in a frustrating dilemma. The region can't get high-speed rail service because it can't demonstrate market demand, but it can't prove there's a demand because there's no truly accessible service available here at any speed.

 

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/03/even-slowly-train-needs-roll

About speed, the time savings gained from going above 90 mph to 110 mph are minimal, but the expense is disproportionately larger. Perhaps the only exception is the 58-mile section between Columbus and Galion which sees maybe 5-10 daily freight trains. Those could relocated to a parallel CSX line south from Marion through the west side of Delaware. CSX was ready to do this 10 years ago to cede its 3C right of way to COTA so it could build the North Corridor LRT next to it and the state could use the 3C track for intercity rail. It would leave a largely freight-free route (except local freight service could be operated at night) that could be upgraded to 110 mph without having to build a passenger-only track offset by 30 feet from the active freight track. But such an offset is not a legal requirement. It's a matter that's subject to negotiation on a case-by-case basis -- a point Larkin overlooked.

 

But the goal of the federal program is 110.  Period.  Who's overlooking that?  The thing you're saying Larkin overlooked is apparently something ORDC's continuing to overlook as well.  Are we doing this offset?  Or are we not?  Larkin isn't asking for controlling board approval for anything.  We are. 

 

What are we doing to, specifically, to acknowledge that the goal of 3C is 110 mph service?  That charge is that it's not, but that it should be.  Is it?  Yes or no.  If no, then Larkin has overlooked nothing of importance.  The question is what speed will we get and when.  If ORDC considers 110 mph service to be a secondary or tertiary goal, then ORDC's intransigence has become issue #1.  There's nothing to look at, or overlook, until that basic problem is solved.  ORDC's priorities need to match those of the feds and of the Ohio market.  In a word, speed.

The feds goal is jobs.

 

The ultimate speed goal for 3C will be determined by the environmental impact study.

^ I hate to agree with 327, but that's a bit shifty. What happened to "QuickStart is a $400m down-payment on high-speed rail?"

Nothing has changed. But what speed? We can't sit here at our computers and conduct 18-24 months and $14 million worth of environmental impact planning. Let the plan determine the optimal speed.

The feds goal is jobs.

 

The ultimate speed goal for 3C will be determined by the environmental impact study.

 

Goals are not determined by studies.  That belies the definition of the word.  Goals are determined by leadership, and any goal worth its salt will exceed existing parameters. 

 

At the federal level, imagine Obama selling this $8 billion program not as "high speed rail" but as expanding 70s-level Amtrak service to new markets.  That's not what happened and everyone knows why.  Words have meanings.  At this point, it's hard to even have a conversation with 3C's backers because goals for them are somehow non-volitional, MOUs mean nothing, Amtrak statements mean nothing, and speed is unimportant no matter what the market says.  Above all, the concerns of Ohio voters mean nothing.  They'll take low speed-- indefinitely-- and they'll damn well like it.  If the market disagrees, the market needs to be insulted more until it comes around. 

 

It's almost as if 3C's backers feel that Ohio needs to be punished, by receiving 70s-level Amtrak service in the 2010s, because Ohio failed to embrace 70s-level Amtrak service back when it should have.  This seems backwards, and wasteful, and increasingly spiteful.  It's one thing to fight passionately for rail since the 70s.  It's another thing entirely if we're still fighting for 70s-level rail service in Ohio, even though it's 2010.

 

^ I hate to agree with 327

 

And a good day to you sir as well.

Goals are great. Set them high and take what reality gives you along the way. Be sure to attend the public hearings for the Ohio Hub PEIS to give your views of what your own reality is.

KJP, of the $400 million, what percentage of the cost wouldn't be a down payment on higher speed rail?

 

Essentially the way I see it is that the worst case scenario is we make a $400 million down payment on a higher speed system and have a $17 million carrying cost per year (nothing compared to the $1 billion+ annual highway subsidy for Ohio).  During that time Ohioans get the benefit of a conventional speed system and its connectivity. 

 

On the other hand if we reject this system and construction costs inflate at over 4% per year from now until we do build the system, we essentially pay the same amount but don't get the current benefit. And that assumes there is another federal grant available.

 

 

 

As the saying goes....  "you can pay now or pay later"....but the costs always go up.

 

Given that the infrastructure improvements to the 3C rail corridor can serve as a springboard for eventual 110 MPH service in the same corridor, you could rightly say that the $400-million is a "down payment".

 

So are you now saying that 110 MPH is not inevitable because the environmental work could limit the speed?

 

How would one ever increase the speed?

 

This question is not intended to torpedo your credibility, just clarify the process. You tend to lament that nobody listens to what you say, but I am attempting to listen. Very carefully.

Sorry for the last-minute notice on this, but I think many of you might be interested in this as funding for transit and passenger rail is a key issue to be addressed....

 

RSVP by this Wednesday, March 31 at:

http://www.theoec.org/LobbyDay2010.htm

 

Your State, Your Voice!  Join us on April 14.

 

Environmental Lobby Day is your chance to green up the Ohio Statehouse.

 

Join the Ohio Environmental Council's environmental-conservation network for Environmental Lobby Day, where we bring environmental concerns and priorities directly to state lawmakers and officials from environmental and regulatory agencies.

 

The OEC will arrange appointments for you with lawmakers as well as give you tips and information to make your meetings as productive as possible.

 

The day includes lunch at the Statehouse Atrium with lawmakers and staff, and an evening "Cocktails & Conversation" reception to network and share the day’s experiences.

 

WHEN & WHERE

 

Wednesday, April 14

 

8:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Lawmaker Meetings & Activities 

YWCA & Ohio Statehouse, Downtown Columbus

 

4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Cocktails & Conversation Reception 

Hyatt on Capitol Square, 75 E. State Street, Columbus, OH 43215

 

COST

 

 

 

FREE for OEC Legacy Club & President's Club members

$25 for OEC members

$30 for non-members, which includes free one-year OEC membership

For group discounts, please call (614) 487-7506 to register.

 

Register by March 31!

 

http://www.theoec.org/LobbyDay2010.htm

At the federal level, imagine Obama selling this $8 billion program not as "high speed rail" but as expanding 70s-level Amtrak service to new markets.  That's not what happened and everyone knows why.

 

Try reading the relevant text from the ARRA which states "projects that support the development of intercity high speed rail service"

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111cIq4qW:e286436:

 

and Title 49, Subtitle V, Part D, Chapter 261, Subsection 26101 which describes the funding priorities under HSR

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/usc_sup_01_49_10_V_20_D_40_261.html

 

There is nothing that is being planned or done in Ohio which is inconsistent with either of these.

 

Words have meanings.

 

When you take the time to understand them. No one with an ounce of intelligence actually believed that you could get there by splitting up $8 billion between competing states. The purpose of the funding was the development of HSR not the completion of it.

 

To suggest that the people of Ohio were lied to is disengenuous just as it would be disengenuous to suggest that President Eisenhower lied to the people when he proposed the Apollo moon missions because we wouldn't get there for another 10 years.

 

 

 

seanmcl, the meanings you're suggesting are rather attenuated.  If this investment doesn't directly carry over to high speed... if high speed requires substantially different equipment... then it's a bit of a stretch to claim that this investment would truly "support the development of intercity high speed rail service" in any meaningful way.  It's highly debatable whether this plan even meets the broad purpose of funding HSR's development.  What's especially troubling is the extent to which 3C's backers shrug off attempts to examine the direct planning linkage between these two seemingly distinct visions.

Making the rounds:

A thoughtful editorial that should/could apply to the on-going debate in Ohio:

 

 

Posted on Mon, Mar. 29, 2010

 

Winging It: Transportation funding bridges political divide

By Tom Belden

 

After watching months of rancorous debate over the health-care overhaul in Washington, it may come as a surprise to learn what Democrats and Republicans alike are thinking these days about spending money on transportation.

 

On health care, the two parties were incapable of agreeing on what to order for lunch. Yet when it comes to giving federal support to highways, aviation, and a new generation of faster passenger trains, members of Congress often put party affiliation aside.

 

That's pretty logical when you think about it. Every community, large or small, must have local streets and major highways. Most of them clamor as well for a modern airport and better rail service to move people and goods.

 

Few members of Congress are so parsimonious with taxpayers' money that they will vote against highway construction or an increase in Amtrak service in their district.

 

Find this article at:

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/homepage/20100329_Winging_It__Transportation_funding_bridges_political_divide.html 

 

seanmcl, the meanings you're suggesting are rather attenuated.  If this investment doesn't directly carry over to high speed... if high speed requires substantially different equipment... then it's a bit of a stretch to claim that this investment would truly "support the development of intercity high speed rail service" in any meaningful way.

 

327, the only "evidence" that you have provided that this investment "doesn't directly carry over to high speed" is your interpretation of clause in a Memorandum of Understanding that leaves open the issue of shared track for passenger trains operating above 90 MPH. In fact, all of the proposed uses of the $400 are contained in the Act 49 and the ARRA.

 

It's highly debatable whether this plan even meets the broad purpose of funding HSR's development. 

 

In your mind, perhaps. I prefer to stick with the law and statute as they are written.

 

What's especially troubling is the extent to which 3C's backers shrug off attempts to examine the direct planning linkage between these two seemingly distinct visions.

 

What are the distinctions to which you refer? You make it sound like one plan would take us to Mars, the planet, and the other to Mars, Pennsylvania. We are talking about the same rights of way, the same track (in many, if not all cases, that remains to be seen), the same grade level crossing eliminations, the same improvements to stations, etc. Nearly everthing necessary to make 90 MPH safe will be used to support 110 MPH service. So where are the distinctions?

 

In other words, you have created the straw man out of the facts and then wish to debate it.

 

You can lead a horse to water but you can't convince him that he is thirsty.

 

Few members of Congress are so parsimonious with taxpayers' money that they will vote against highway construction or an increase in Amtrak service in their district.

 

 

I guess this doesn't apply to state legislators in Ohio...

Published: March 26. 2010 1:16AM

High-speed rail group seeks stop in Erie

By RON LEONARDI

[email protected]

 

In a perfect world, Erie County Council Chairman Kyle Foust envisions Erie as part of a high-speed national rail corridor, with GE Transportation workers manufacturing the future bullet trains.

 

"This is not a pipe dream,'' Foust said Thursday at a rail summit focusing on the future of high-speed rail.

 

About 135 people, including several political speakers, attended the two-hour meeting at the Ambassador Banquet & Conference Center.

 

The event was sponsored by All Aboard Erie, a local group promoting awareness of how high-speed rail could benefit the Erie region.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010303269925

 

    High Speed Rail in Ohio will require new right of way in many places, new grade separations, new signalling, and new track. We can obviously not afford to do all of that for $400 million.

 

    Some other things that HSR requires are a market for HSR, which may be facilitated by better connections to the stations, high density development around the stations, and above all, support of the people.

 

    If all goes well, the Quick Start plan will lead to development of better connections, high density development around the stations, and support of the people. This could take 20 years, "Quick" being a relative term.

 

  If it doesn't go well, then the feds are out $400 million and Ohio is stuck with an underutilized passenger railroad to maintain or abandon. There is no guarantee that this will pay off.

if everyone is completely wrong, and this doesn't work the same way it has in pretty much every other state that's implemented it... then we've drastically upgraded our freight railways which can have a significant economic impact.  there is absolutely nothing to lose here... except more time.  the one thing I do know is that if we turn this money away, we won't have any form of passenger rail for well... maybe forever.  seems like a pretty easy decision to me. i find it mindboggling people don't get what is trying to be done.

 

 

"I find it mindboggling people don't get what is trying to be done."

 

  I am not surprised. The average Ohioan does not follow UrbanOhio. He doesn't know much about railroads, he doesn't understand the difference betweek peak velocity and average velocity, and chances are, if he's from Cincinnati he's never even been to Cleveland and vice versa.

 

    Furthermore, he doesn't follow state politics, and he has no idea what it costs to build and maintain a highway.  For that matter, he doesn't even know what he's spending to fund his own car, and anyway, if he's making payments on his car he sees no reason to make payments on a train on top of that.

 

    Chances are, he's never been to Europe to see the high-speed rail there. (Less than 50% of Americans have passports.) Chances are, he's never ridden a real passenger train in his entire life. If he's from Cleveland, he has some experience with the Rapid, but if he's from Cincinnati he doesn't know the difference between high-speed rail and light rail.

 

    He's disappointed with Obama, even if he voted for Obama, and he associated the 3-C with another failed government program.

 

    In short, he cannot imagine what the 3-C will be like.

 

    He sees KJP and other rail supporters as a bunch of activists. What he needs is renderings, photos of passenger rail in other places, and above all, personel experience, either directly or second-hand. With all respect to KJP, the message still hasn't gotten out effectively.

 

    It's not mind-boggling at all, really. Hey, there's people on this board who don't get what is trying to be done.

let me rephrase...

 

 

 

"I find it mindboggling people on this board don't get what is trying to be done."

 

 

  I think I have a relatively good understanding of the plan, though I don't know as much about it as KJP.

 

  At the same time, I think that there are folks on this board who have their own ideas of what they would like to see, and think that they can influence the plan. For example, some want to see passenger trains at Union Terminal in Cincinnati. That was simply not part of the Quick Start plan, at least not now. That doesn't mean that they are stupid; it just means that they like to be engaged in the discussion.

 

    Furthermore, there is enough discussion on this board about alternatives that sometimes it's easy to lose track of what the plan really is. Then there's KJP...

 

    It's all good.  :-)

^--- We all do.

Those opposed to the 3c plan are campaigning in typical fashion, a few short phrases repeated over and over: " nobody will ride it" and " it will take a 17 mil subsidy to operate it".  Trying to argue is not going to work because most ohioans WILL never ride it and most ohioans think 17 mil is a lot of money.  Let the opposition have this, even if people will ride it, and even if 17 mil is nothing compared to highway, and many other, subsidies.  those of us that are for the 3c should also repeat a few short talking points:

 

"The 400 mil goes to upgrading freight lines as well".

"This money will be spent for passenger rail in another state if not in ohio".

"Either Ohio will be part of a nationwide high speed rail system, or it will be left out of the system".

 

While I don't think that the 3c line will be heavily utilized at first, I do think it is a very important investment for our state.  I think Ohio should be a leg bone in the nationwide high speed rail skeleton, or the legs will go around us and we will simply be in the crotch of America.

 

 

 

 

 

"I find it mindboggling people don't get what is trying to be done."

 

  I am not surprised. The average Ohioan does not follow UrbanOhio. He doesn't know much about railroads, he doesn't understand the difference betweek peak velocity and average velocity, and chances are, if he's from Cincinnati he's never even been to Cleveland and vice versa.

 

 

What I find mind-boggling is that our elected representatives and their aides, and the media don't understand this. I don't expect the average Ohioan to delve into all of this. The average Ohioan doesn't have to, because the average Ohioan probably expects elected representatives and their aides to become informed enough to make intelligent decisions, and expects professional reporters who cover government and transportation to learn enough about these issues to write informed summaries.

 

The average Ohioan has unrealistic expectations and is being cheated.