Dan, there is no official 3C fare data yet. No official fare information for 3C has been announced by Amtrak or ODOT. And the data cited is generalized because there isn't room or a reason to list all of the fare plans Amtrak offers.

As a recent releasee from administrative action I can say with some authority that the Moderators should be cut a lot of slack, even if their decisions are not perfect.  It is a thankless job that allows us to have a discussion in a moderated forum.  The advantages always outweigh the disadvantages. 

Ken, I understand that. I'm just basing my opinion on the range of fares in the talking points and how it might affect ridership.

 

Don't limit the source of your opinions to unofficial sources. Moving on....

 

  I would add to the cost of driving discussion that although the initial cost of the car, insurance, etc., may not appear to be an issue, those cost are still there and they are very real. It really does cost about $0.50 a mile to drive.

 

  My insurance company phones me every once in a while and asks me to read them the odometer on the vehicle. They charge me a higher rate if I drive more miles. Two trips between Cincinnati and Cleveland and back per year will add 1000 miles to the odometer. So, I can't really say that insurance is a fixed cost that will not change whether I take the train or not.

 

 

 

The problem with presenting data in the manner is that most of the costs associated with driving a car are already paid by the owner.  New costs are not incurred for insurance, depreciation, etc. to take this 500 mile trip.  Certainly there will be wear and tear costs associated with the trip, but those will be minimal.  Really, the only out of pocket expenses for the family of 4 on the day of the trip, will be gas and parking.  using a very conservative 20 miles per gallon @ $4.00 per gallon results in gas costs of $100.

 

 

 

Dan, your argument that all non-gas+parking costs are sunk costs and thus out of the equation doesn't hold up.

 

- Every time anyone buys insurance these days, they are asked to estimate the annual mileage.  Annual mileage relates to risk and thus to insurance costs, as it should.  I pay less by stating that my truck is only used on in town trips (true), and thus my expected mileage is 5K/year.  That is only possible if I take some form of mass transit for all of my out of town trips.

 

- Annual mileage is directly related to risk of moving violations, and moving violations cost money directly, and in the form of increased insurance rates.

 

- Depreciation is directly related to mileage.  A 5 year old car used only for in town trips will be worth significantly more in resale than the same car with an extra 50K miles on it cause it was also used for out of town travel. 

 

- maintenance is not insignificant, and is related to mileage.  Look at the maintenance schedule in your owners manual.  I just paid $50 for an oil change at jiffy lube.  At one change per 3000 miles, that relatively small cost, alone, is about $8/round trip to cleveland.

 

- The purchase of a car is itself a decision that can bring significant differences in costs, related to how the car will be used.  I bought a used toyota tacoma with 140K miles on it for $5K, but only because I knew it was for in town use.  If I have to buy a car for out of town trips also, I will be less likely to go with such an inexpensive option.  The more good mass transit we have, the more people will be able to spend less on their cars.

 

These are real costs, Dan.  They add up.  It's not as simple as gas + parking.

 

 

Controlling Board acts

One-vote margin lets 3-C rail plan move ahead

Democrats OK $25 million study; Republicans oppose it

Monday,  April 19, 2010 10:49 AM

Updated: Monday, April 19, 2010 04:25 PM

By James Nash and Jim Siegel

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

By the narrowest of margins, a state spending panel today voted to allow Gov. Ted Strickland's administration to spend $25 million on a study of passenger rail in Ohio.

 

The 4-3 vote by the Controlling Board keeps alive the prospect of trains connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Dayton. The party-line vote, however, suggests that the project still could face defeat when the state wants to spend a larger amount to improve train tracks and buy passenger cars.

 

All four Democrats on the panel voted in favor, while all three Republicans were opposed. The vote came after more than two hours of discussion, some of it contentious.

 

 

Full story at:http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/04/19/controlling-board.html?sid=101

Ohio Democrats go ahead with vote to accept 3C passenger rail money over Republican objections

By Aaron Marshall, The Plain Dealer

April 19, 2010, 6:40PM

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Democrats running the state controlling board pushed forward Monday to accept the first $25 million in federal funding for the 3C passenger rail project in a party-line vote that angered Republican critics.

 

"This is an illegal act and in violation of the constitution," sputtered Sen. David Goodman, the only lawyer on the seven-member panel, as the board wrapped up a nearly two-hour grilling of a parade of Ohio Department of Transportation employees.

 

"They don't have the appropriate legal authority to make those expenditures," Goodman told a knot of reporters in a crowded Statehouse hallway after the 4-3 vote.

 

"This was a legal act," said Clayton Luckie, a Dayton lawmaker who was one of four Democratic votes to move ahead with the $25 million worth of engineering and environmental studies.

 

Full story at: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/04/ohio_democrats_go_ahead_with_v.html

Board OKs $25M for passenger rail study

By William Hershey | Monday, April 19, 2010, 03:57 PM

 

On 4-3 party-line votes, the state Controlling Board on Monday, April 19, gave the go-ahead to a $25 million planning study for a passenger rail system linking Dayton, Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland.

 

The study is expected to take nine months, said Scott Varner, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Transportation. The money is to come from $400 million in federal funds awarded to Ohio to set up a passenger rail system.

 

All four Democrats voted “yes” while all three Republicans voted “no.”

 

Full story at: http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2010/04/19/board_oks_25m_for_passenger_ra.html?cxtype=feedbot

 

Monday, April 19, 2010, 1:19pm EDT  |  Modified: Monday, April 19, 2010, 5:08pm

Money for rail study clears Controlling Board along party lines

Business First of Columbus

 

 

The state Controlling Board on Monday afternoon approved spending $25 million of federal stimulus money to finance engineering and design studies for Ohio’s proposed 3-C passenger rail system.

 

The vote means one key hurdle cleared in what has become a contentious, partisan debate over whether the rail plan is best for the state. But it’s far from the end of the dispute.

 

With a “yes” vote from the board’s four Democratic members and “no” votes for its three Republican members, Ohio can move ahead with studies on the passenger rail line that would connect Cincinnati to Cleveland, with stops in Columbus and Dayton. The state would be reimbursed through its $400 million stimulus award.

 

Full story at:

http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2010/04/19/daily6.html?t=printable

I've tried looking in this forum for the next Controlling Board vote but can't find it.  Will it be in 2011?  How will the fact that John Carey and David Goodman will no longer be on the Controlling Board after Dec. 2010, due to term limits, affect the make up of the board?

Democrats OK $25M for Ohio passenger rail plan 

Posted 4/19/2010 5:19 PM ET

By Matt Leingang, Associated Press Writer

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A plan to restore passenger rail service between Cleveland and Cincinnati cleared its first political hurdle Monday over the objections of Republicans, who argued that Gov. Ted Strickland still hasn't made a case that the project is needed.

Democrats on the state Controlling Board voted 4-3 along party lines to approve spending $25 million in federal stimulus money to complete final engineering and design work on a project that, if successful, could prove to be a legacy of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package in Ohio.

 

The vote was a temporary victory for Strickland, who says the project will create 250 immediate construction jobs and set the stage for higher-speed trains.

 

 

full story at: http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=cincinnati&sParam=33314377.story

I've tried looking in this forum for the next Controlling Board vote but can't find it. Will it be in 2011? How will the fact that John Carey and David Goodman will no longer be on the Controlling Board after Dec. 2010, due to term limits, affect the make up of the board?

 

The controlling board meets twice a month. Its schedule and agendas are at:

 

http://ecb.ohio.gov/Public/Default.aspx

 

When projects and/or funding requests are sufficiently developed by their sponsor agencies or departments, they will be placed on the board's agenda for its consideration.

Given that it will take 8 to 10 months to complete the Environmental Impact Statement and economic impact study of the 3C, I wouldn't look for a return to the Controlling Board until that is complete.

 

The problem with presenting data in the manner is that most of the costs associated with driving a car are already paid by the owner.  New costs are not incurred for insurance, depreciation, etc. to take this 500 mile trip.  Certainly there will be wear and tear costs associated with the trip, but those will be minimal.  Really, the only out of pocket expenses for the family of 4 on the day of the trip, will be gas and parking.  using a very conservative 20 miles per gallon @ $4.00 per gallon results in gas costs of $100.

 

 

 

Dan, your argument that all non-gas+parking costs are sunk costs and thus out of the equation doesn't hold up.

 

- Every time anyone buys insurance these days, they are asked to estimate the annual mileage.  Annual mileage relates to risk and thus to insurance costs, as it should.  I pay less by stating that my truck is only used on in town trips (true), and thus my expected mileage is 5K/year.  That is only possible if I take some form of mass transit for all of my out of town trips.

 

- Annual mileage is directly related to risk of moving violations, and moving violations cost money directly, and in the form of increased insurance rates.

 

- Depreciation is directly related to mileage.  A 5 year old car used only for in town trips will be worth significantly more in resale than the same car with an extra 50K miles on it cause it was also used for out of town travel. 

 

- maintenance is not insignificant, and is related to mileage.  Look at the maintenance schedule in your owners manual.  I just paid $50 for an oil change at jiffy lube.  At one change per 3000 miles, that relatively small cost, alone, is about $8/round trip to cleveland.

 

- The purchase of a car is itself a decision that can bring significant differences in costs, related to how the car will be used.  I bought a used toyota tacoma with 140K miles on it for $5K, but only because I knew it was for in town use.  If I have to buy a car for out of town trips also, I will be less likely to go with such an inexpensive option.  The more good mass transit we have, the more people will be able to spend less on their cars.

 

These are real costs, Dan.  They add up.  It's not as simple as gas + parking.

 

 

 

Dan's assertion may not be 100% accurate, but it's a pretty good generalization.  To counter your example, my insurance company hasn't asked me my annual mileage since I signed up 3 years ago.  If you already own a vehicle 80% of the non-gas/parking costs are going to be the same regardless of how much you drive (within reason).  We can nitpick costs to the penny, but this entire project to date is based on educated guesses and generalizations. 

 

To go further I'd say for a multi-person trip parking costs and local transit costs probably offset each other to a degree(parking in downtown Cleveland ranges from $5-20, each all day RTA pass is $5).  So for a family that already owns a car, the only actual cost in the equation is gas vs tickets.  Again, this is a generalization.  I know that sometimes people will walk everywhere they have to go or someone will pick them up.

 

 

 

Does anyone have any idea how much of an increase in tax revenue this might generate solely from the improvement in freight movement?  Is there even a way to figure this out?  It may be a good way to show an offset to the annual operating costs.

To go further I'd say for a multi-person trip parking costs and local transit costs probably offset each other to a degree(parking in downtown Cleveland ranges from $5-20, each all day RTA pass is $5). So for a family that already owns a car, the only actual cost in the equation is gas vs tickets. Again, this is a generalization. I know that sometimes people will walk everywhere they have to go or someone will pick them up.

Depending on the age of the child, this is not true. If the child is between the ages of 6-12 the all day pass is $2.50. I believe if under the age of 6, then the child rides for free.

 

Someone also mentioned that other Amtrak trains have discounted tickets for children, and I would imagine that a 3C train would do this as well. However, we don't have any information regarding user fees, so talking about this is really not going to get us anywhere.

^And on the weekends I can park on the street for free.  Yet again, it was a GENERALIZATION.  I know that its not 100% true for all cases. We can nitpick everyone's arguments until the cows come home, but we won't really gain anything.  My point was that parking costs and local transit costs are fairly close for multi-person trips so its pretty safe to take that out of the financial equation.

^Sorry, I missed that when I read your post for the first time.

3C rail plan clears first hurdle

By Jon Craig, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 19, 2010

 

COLUMBUS - A $25 million engineering, environment and design study for the proposed $400 million 3C statewide passenger rail plan was narrowly approved by the Ohio Controlling Board on Monday, by a 4-3 vote along political party lines.

 

Spending any other federal money on the project, after the nine-month study, will require five votes on the board, an oversight arm of the state legislature.

What about a family in which the parents cannot drive - vision problems for instance - how would you recommend them traveling? Or grandparents, when (and it will happen) we start to crack down on the most dangerous drivers on the road - the elderly. How do would like them to travel - flying carpet?

Does anyone have any idea how much of an increase in tax revenue this might generate solely from the improvement in freight movement? Is there even a way to figure this out? It may be a good way to show an offset to the annual operating costs.

 

There are a number of ways the 3C project can "pay for itself" by creating a positive net fiscal impact for the State of Ohio. All Aboard Ohio looked at these and measured their total impact in a new report that I'm giving you all a sneak peak into....

 

FULL REPORT:

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/3C%20fiscal%20impact-FINAL.pdf

 

FISCAL TABLES:

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/3C%20fiscal%20impact-tables.pdf

 

Keep in mind that if not a single soul rides these trains, the most it will cost the state is $29 million per year for a 20-year commitment. Or, instead, if the state gives back the $400 million, that equates to $20 million over 20 years. Now, is a modernized freight rail system linking Ohio's most populous cities with a few passenger trains a day that will carry people worth (at the very worst-case scenario) up to $9 million per year?

Tuesday April 20, 2010

 

Intermetropolitan Passenger Rail: Considerations for State Legislators

 

Robert Puentes, Senior Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program

The Brooking Institute

 

Speech to the National Conference of State Legislators

April 09, 2010 —

 

(In his remarks to a special committee of the National Conference of State Legislators, Robert Puentes argues that American high speed rail represents the kind of potentially game changing, market-shaping investments in the next economy that the country has long deferred.)

 

Since its inception, the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program has used innovative research and policy ideas, as well as close working relationships with corporate, civic, and political leaders, to advance systemic reforms that empower metropolitan areas to compete and prosper in the new century. As we engage with elected officials on the state level few new ideas have generated as much interest an enthusiasm as America’s high speed passenger rail program.

 

This program was given a tremendous boost last January with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). That law dedicated $8 billion to jump start a new high speed rail network and is one of the clearest examples of how the stimulus package—for all its flaws and business-as-usual approaches—really did introduce a few bits of true program creativity.

 

Full report at:http://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2010/0409_rail_transportation_puentes.aspx

If you are referring to me, I was only speaking about situations where a family or small group would find it more efficient and cheaper to drive. I didn't say there should be no train, I didn't say I was against the train. I worry that there won't be enough riders.

 

And the only actual data that we have, which is based upon experience, not opinion, is that this is unlikely. Sure, you can make the claim that Ohio is unlike any other region of the country, but even if that were true, how that would affect ridership would still be a matter of opinion, not fact.

 

And, not to beat a dead horse, the purpose of the 3C Quick Start is to reintroduce conventional speed intercity passenger rail service to Ohio as a means of building support for the much greater investment in true HSR. It is hard to have a meaningful conversation about a project such as true 3C HSR, in the abstract.

 

Another dumb Web poll. Still, we need people to vote yes!

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/04/20/hotissue20.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101

Perhaps if we threatened to move out of Ohio if Republicans kill 3C?

 

Help this FB Page go viral - join, and get your friends to join.  Yes, it is just another FB page but perhaps its tone will get some attention...

I don't see how that helps.

There must be something more to the Republican opposition to this plan than meets the eye.  As I said before, this program is justifiable solely based on its improvements to the freight rail corridor.  The commercial carriers would not be "on board" if it  weren't.  So why the blatant partisanship? If this is an issue the Republicans chose as a poster boy for excessive government spending they could have picked a far better issue and I don't think they are that stupid.  Are they holding out for something in trade? Any speculation?

From what I hear, it's about the only issue they could hang on Strickland, and so they are riding it for whatever it's worth. Not much, if fuel prices continue rising this summer and other states start moving on their plans.

 

 

There must be something more to the Republican opposition to this plan than meets the eye...Any speculation?

 

One of the ironies of the Republican Party and a clue to why it is doing what it is doing, is to look at health care and passenger rail.

 

The health care plan which was recently signed into law is similar, in many respects, to health care plans devised under the Nixon administration as well as to the MA health plan signed by Mitt Romney, a Republican. The 3C is part of the Ohio Hub plan, also started by a Republican administration.

 

What Republican strategists have determined is that with incumbants always in danger during a bad economy, blocking any significant legislative initiative on the part of Democrats will give them the ability to channel Ronald Reagan and say "Are you better off than you were four (or two) years ago?" The more that the Democrats are able to do to point to a reason to stick with them for another few years the better off the Democrats will be.

 

Between '06 and '10, the approval margin of Democrats over Republicans was near 20%. Unrealistic expectations on the part of the electorate regarding what Obama would be able to do in his first year, coupled with his inability to control the party has cause public sentiment toward the Democrats to drop.

 

The last thing that Republican's want before November is good news which, ironically, the electorate seems unable to comprehend (if they did, they'd be suspicious of anything the Republicans attempted to do before November).

 

That is why, no matter what kind of economic sense is brought to the 3C discussion, you aren't gonna get many Republican's who openly support it.

 

For them, destroying 3C and projects like it is about defeating Democrats, not helping the citizens of Ohio.

 

The two possible Republican responses I see from this study. 

 

1. If the study shows 3C is a bad idea.  Republicans say "We've said its a bad idea all along the Democrats just like wasting money."

 

2. If the study shows 3C is an great idea.  Republicans say "The studies are biased and unreliable.  Democrats can't be trusted, and we shouldn't be spending money"

^It's all so obviously political and not based in fact. As was mentioned, the Ohio Hub plan was crafted under a Republican administration. It's all about not giving the other team a "victory" and it's hurting the people in Ohio and in the entire country because politicians and the electorate can't see past the politics of the present.

 

I'm a registered Republican and have already written several letters scolding Republicans for their unnecessary partisanship. It's really disgusting.

I know this is off topic, but it seemed fitting to the current discussion. Can't let the Dems score another point. Happy Tuesday!  :-D

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/passage-of-health-care-reform-brings-democratrepub,17281/

Sorry for the long message, but I thought tedolph's question was one lurking the background for too long. It's time to bring it all out...

 

First, it's important to note that not all Republicans oppose this project. Keep in mind this project had its origins under a GOP administration and led by then-Ohio Rail Development Commission Director James Seney, once a Republican mayor of Sylvania.

 

But I think your question, tedolph, is why some Republicans are so adamantly opposed to this project that they ignore basic answers to their questions, and refuse to support no-risk planning that will give them answers that can't be otherwise answered at this stage of the project's development.

 

No elected official, regardless of party, does anything without the support of their constituents. Their loudest constituents are the ones who pay the most money into their campaigns, or can organize huge turnouts of people, or speak for large groups of people (ie: CEO of major employer in their district, mayor, county commissioner, etc.). One of the largest constituencies in Ohio surrounds the automobile, trucking and their supportive industries -- car dealers, road contractors, owners of gas station chains, trucking companies and the like.

 

These sectors do support Democrats too, but if their campaign contributions are any measure, they like Republicans better. Also, consider the conservative nature of Republicans, which tends to find greater comfort in the status quo whereas liberals often tend to enjoy the pursuit of change. Ironically, it was liberals who sought the development of public sector highways 100 years ago to rein in the monopolistic power of the private-sector railroads while conservatives fought to protect the railroads.

 

So it should come as no surprise that Republicans are more closely tied in with the status quo of the automobile, the highways and other supportive industries. It's not conspiracy theories. And many of these folks aren't sinister. Highways are really all they know. For example, Senate President Bill Harris owns two car dealerships in Ashland. But some of it does get ugly. The GOP's designated 3C attack dog was the spokesman for former Gov. Voinovich and linked to the Ohio Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association. Plus, Ohio Contractor Association President Chris Runyan reportedly is at the top of John Kasich's list to be ODOT director if Kasich wins.

 

Surprising? Hardly. Clark Street, a recent president of the Ohio Contractors Association, had been an ODOT deputy director under former Republican Gov. James Rhodes. Former Gov. Bob Taft hired Ohio Petroleum Council lobbyist Elise Spriggs, a member of the gas tax task force, as his director of legislative affairs shortly after she helped pass the last gas tax increase. Taft's ODOT director was Gordon Proctor, previously the Director of Highways under former Director Jerry Wray. Before Republican Gov. Voinovich named Wray ODOT Director, Wray was a vice president at Flexible Pavements of Ohio, the asphalt industry association.

 

Then there's this portion of an excellent Plain Dealer article "Gas-tax increase fuels ODOT building boom" by Ted Wendling and T.C. Brown from Dec. 31, 2006:

 

"My sense is that the [highway] contractors are much more adamant than the other groups," Proctor wrote. "Protecting the fuel tax is a bright line issue for the contractors, especially so recently after their fuel tax victory."

 

Proctor has long denied that a pay-to- play culture exists at ODOT, insisting through his spokesman that there was nothing unseemly about his decision to co-host an invitation-only "transportation summit" in August with Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell and about 60 ODOT contractors.

 

Before turning the dais over to Blackwell, Proctor told the group that he hoped the next governor would keep transportation at the top of his political agenda, saying, "I urge all of you to participate in the debate this fall."

 

The event was harshly criticized by Governor-elect Ted Strickland's spokesman, Keith Dailey, as a shakedown. Last week, Dailey repeated Strickland's concerns that ODOT projects are driven by campaign contributions, saying Strickland's new ODOT director will be under orders "to identify any activity that feeds that perception and stop it immediately."

 

The highwaymen saw their access to and influence on ODOT diminish under Strickland. They want the good ol' days back and apparently believe a GOP governor will bring those happy days again. Equally as concerning to them is that they think groups like All Aboard Ohio, Policy Matters Ohio, Ohio Public Transit Association, and others are some powerful cabal that have united under the coalition name "Save Transit Now" and was created to take "their" gas tax money. So the highwaymen started their own coalition to counter it (see: http://209.235.208.145/cgi-bin/WebSuite/tcsAssnWebSuite.pl?Action=DisplayNewsDetails&RecordID=1081&Sections=1&IncludeDropped=0&AssnID=OTA&DBCode=10451).

 

It is pleasing to me that they are spending money and time to fight a battle that doesn't exist. They have already hired a high-powered law firm in Columbus (Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease) to investigate the activities of public-sector members of the Save Transit Now coalition, including submitting requests for disclosure of public documents relating to Save Transit Now. Plus this make-believe battle brings them out in the open so Save Transit Now can learn a little more about them to better craft the ultimate strategy.

 

In the end, I wish the highwaymen would realize they aren't going to die by losing a few percentage points of their 98 percent market share. In fact, many of their contractors and employees can expand their fortunes by adding rail and transit development to their portfolios. But they are falling into the same myopic trap that almost killed the railroads 40-60 years ago -- the highway lobby seems to think they are in the business to build roads and support the vehicles that run on them. Similarly, the railroads thought that their customers wanted trains. Neither is a healthy, long-term marketing approach. Both of their core purposes are to provide transportation of people and their goods regardless of vehicle type, and the sooner the highwaymen correct their myopia, the sooner they will recognize that rail and transit is not the enemy. Instead, they're part of their future.

^ Best thing I've read in a long time. Ought to appear as an Op-Ed somewhere. I could maybe help you get it placed.

Thanks, but I just submitted op-eds everywhere (though only one paper printed it). I suppose papers that didn't print my last submission are fair game.

KJP:

 

Your excellent piece explains why there are some prominent Republicans who are against 3C, but it doesn't explain why Republicans on the Control Board voted lock-step with each other, or why this is happening on a regular basis at a national and local level all over the Country.  It can explain why legislators like Harris are opposed. But it doesn't explain how an irate citizen can stand up in a town hall and seriously admonish a politician to "keep the government's hands off of my Medicare!"

 

The interests to which you refer simply don't have the pockets deep enough to fit the hand of every legislator and they don't have to.

 

The GOP talking points document which was discovered, accidentally, when left in a hotel, clearly shows that the Republican strategy is to paint the Democrats as moving the US closer to "socialism". You can argue that roads are even more socialist than trains but the fact is that many people will never, as far as they are concerned, take a train whereas most will take a bus or car, and "socialism" is, to them, taking their money and giving it to someone else and when you do that to a person who can't even find work, they get angry.

 

Look at guys like Boehner who lobbied against the economic stimulus package (he actually threw it on the floor during the House debate) but subsequently took credit for the resulting jobs after the money was redirected to shovel-ready projects. So here was a guy ready to vote against a jobs bill who then takes credit for the jobs created after it passed.

 

It isn't conspiracy theory to say that the Republican strategy is to do everything that they can to obstruct and delay progress on legislation perceived to be widely supported by Democrats. It is the only way that you can explain why practically no one will cross the aisle to vote for or against a bill on the merits of the bill rather than the sponsorship.

 

Ironically, the Democrats are pretty much voting lock-step for much the same reason, namely, if they are perceived to have done nothing and the economy doesn't turn around, their chances in November are poorer than if they tried something, anything.

 

 

 

That's true. My explanation is only part of the picture, and everyone has their reasons for acting as they do. But I am aware of significant linkages between the Republicans and the status quo when it comes to transportation. My explanation wasn't intended to diminish other explanations, only to add to them.

Its a safety thing.  If you vote along party lines its never solely your fault when things go wrong and you can still claim praise when things go right.  If you vote outside of your parties wishes, not only do you open yourself up to direct criticism for failures, you also risk losing the support of your own party members on future issues.

From what I hear, it's about the only issue they could hang on Strickland, and so they are riding it for whatever it's worth. Not much, if fuel prices continue rising this summer and other states start moving on their plans.

 

 

 

Then they are fools.  The Democrats themselves should be crucifying Strickland.  He didn't deliver on anything he promised (fixing transit funding? economy?-Honda lost on his watch, etc.).  There are much better things to hang on him than $400,000,000 of free money. 

Thanks KJP.  That makes a lot of sense and  confirms my suspicions.  What I don't understand is that Strickland is going to have $400,000,000.00 of candy to pass out.  It all doesn't have to go to Democrat donors.  Why can't he offer some of it (half of it?) to Republican road contractors?  Is building/repairing rail bed really that different that laying down asphalt/concrete? Couldn't he waive some retooling/retraining money in front of these people? This doesn't seem all that complicated and makes me think that Strickland is a bit politically naive.  After all, he has years to get all these pieces in place.  What is it I am not getting?

 

A final thought.  These road contractors have to know that the Eisenhower era of freeway construction is over.  Wouldn't they like to be transitioned to the new federal cash trough gently rather than through the cold, hard market system? 

I wonder if the some of the RR corporations historic arrogance toward local politics might play into this as well. They certainly have money to spread around and historically have done so. I mean the GOP was historically nothing if not the party of rail corporate power.

I don't see how that helps.

 

It's Facebook!!!

I wonder if the some of the RR corporations historic arrogance toward local politics might play into this as well. They certainly have money to spread around and historically have done so. I mean the GOP was historically nothing if not the party of rail corporate power.

 

They were also the party of emancipation, until they were against the civil rights movement.

 

Thanks KJP. That makes a lot of sense and confirms my suspicions. What I don't understand is that Strickland is going to have $400,000,000.00 of candy to pass out. It all doesn't have to go to Democrat donors. Why can't he offer some of it (half of it?) to Republican road contractors? What is it I am not getting?

 

The State is likely guided by a bidding process. It is not the responsibility of the State to tell road builders to retool for other development; it is the responsibility of the business to adapt to market forces.

 

At least that is what a true Republican would say.

 

All, ODOT's Transportation Review Advisory Council recently issued its draft list of recommended projects to receive funding in the 2010-2014 period. On that list are a number of projects that may be of interest to you (see the Draft 2010-2014 TRAC List at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Pages/Default.aspx). These are the passenger rail-related projects and their recommended amounts of state funding (and purpose of funding):

 

• 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail no state funding sought for constructon (proposed ranking in TRAC list is to allow ODOT to advance project pending other approvals such as from the State Controlling Board);
  
• Cincinnati Fourth Main Rail and Cincinnati Union Terminal $1 million (for preliminary engineering and environmental documentation so the project can be eligible for federal construction funds);
  
• Cincinnati Streetcar, Phase 1 $15 million (for share of total construction costs estimated at $128 million -- note that this project received the highest TRAC score, 84, of any on the draft list).
  

 

Please submit your comments on any or all of these projects, especially for 3C! Comment period closes at the end of the business day, Monday May 3rd. The TRAC is tabulating pro/con comments, so yours can be as simple as I support/dont support x and list the title of the projects as underlined above or as listed on the draft list. Support them all if you want!

 

Submit your comments via email to: [email protected]

 

Or by regular mail to:

 

TRAC

Attention: Ed Kagel - TRAC Coordinator

Office of Systems Planning and Program Management

1980 West Broad Street

Columbus, OH 43223

 

Thank you for participating in this important process!

Siemens announces website dedicated to U.S. HSR business

 

Siemens Mobility said Tuesday it has established a new website “dedicated to its high-speed rail business in the U.S.” The new site is

 

www.usa.siemens.com/highspeedrail

 

Sacramento, Calif.-based Siemens Mobility is part of Siemens AG. Like many global rail supply companies, Siemens is seeking to maximize its chances in an improving U.S. high speed rail market, modest though that market might be by global standards. Siemens Mobility is already well-established in the North American light rail transit marketplace, and claims it "supplies 1 out of every 3 light rail vehicles in North America."

What kind of timeframe are we looking at before agreements for the study are signed and funds disbursed?

Do you mean for the final engineering/environmental? If so, probably a matter of days, if it hasn't happened already. Draft contracts were submitted for approval to the controlling board. After the board approved them, all that the contracts probably needed were signatures.

Anyone interested in bombarding NBC4 here in Columbus with emails and phone calls with factual information about the 3C Corridor before they run with this biased piece?

 

http://www2.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/local/article/thursday_at_6_p.m._-_ohio_rail_spending/35610/

Of course...they won't consider the following...

 

1. That, until the past year, no dedicated federal funding was ever available for passenger rail...

2. Consecutive administrations of Governor's Voinovich and Taft... and Republican controlled legislatures.... put less and less real $$$ into passenger rail....pretty much discouraging any advancement beyoind the planning stage...

3. While Ohio diddled around....other states committed their own $$$ and cobbled together other federal sources, to get trains running and proved they DO draw passengers.

 

Yeah...NBC4..."Where Accuracy Matters"....  what a sorry laugh...