So, rail people, what's the deal? Why is this taking so long? Is the delay unexpected?

 

What are the implications of the stipulations not to use passenger rail grants to improve freight operations? Is that just hot air?

 

Think for a minute. How can the infrastructure investments required to enable passenger rail service do anything but carry a significant benefit for the host freight railroads? Despite the FRA statements, such benefits are implicit.

 

Yeah, that's why I thought it might just be hot air.

 

As to the slowness at both the state & federal level; consider that developing passenger rail on an aggressive schedule and over a broad scale is something new to transportation officials are both levels. Neither the FRA or many state transportation agencies are either properly staffed both in numbers and in enough people with rail development expertise.

 

Don't read a lot into the slowness beyond that.

 

Okay, gotcha.

How many passengers will there need to be on average per day/week/month/year for this project to be a financial success? 

How many drivers or airline passengers will there need to be on an average day/week/month/ year for projects like the 70-71 Split in Columbus or a third Chicago airport to be a financial success?

  "How many drivers or airline passengers will there need to be..."

 

    It doesn't matter. Whether it is fair or not, the highway and airline industries have a source of funding, while passenger rail does not, other than a nominal amount for Amtrak and some for city transit systems.

 

    We can do cost/benefit studies until the cows come home but it is ultimately going to take a decision to fund the 3-C to get it done. We really don't know how many passengers will ride the 3-C, although we can make comparisons with ridership from similar systems in other states.

 

    In any case, bashing other forms of technology comes across as unproductive. Those other forms of technology are obviously popular.

 

    TBideon - It is unlikely that fares alone will pay for the service, at least in the form currently discussed, because travel times including connections to the destinations at both ends simply cannot compete with automobile travel at this time. Yes, it will work for some people, and there are benefits to be had from being productive while riding.

 

    If the 3-C is upgraded to high speed in the future, or if for some reason it becomes less affordable to drive, or if there is a lot of new development around the stations, then maybe the 3-C can be considered a long-term financial success. In the short term, it will not be.

On the contrary, it does matter. The funding source for airlines and highways is primarily us taxpayers.  None of these modes of transportation is self-sufficient.

 

The record is only broken because some choose not to listen. 

 

BTW, my comment about 'projects being driven by freight congestion' was whether a separate main track for 110 mph service was necessary. While CSX and NYDOT need a separate HSR track in NY state given CSX's heavy freight traffic, we may not need one between Galion and Columbus. Of course none of that made it into Nash's pre-written article for which he cherry-picked quotes to flesh it out.

 

It doesn't make any difference what I tell Nash. He doesn't call people to learn about an issue and then report it. He calls people to collect comments that justify his questionable precepts.

 

He hadn't even called the FRA until I told him to find out if they were concerned about PB's contract not being in effect. I should have also asked him to compare/contrast other similarly sized/complicated contracts to see how long it took for them to be put in force (I think he would find the time involved can take 4-8 months). But I assumed he would be a good reporter and provide a context for his article. My mistake.

[email protected] ..... let the editor know about it.

Sounds just like Greg Korte at the Cincinnati Enquirer, fishing only for the bad details he wanted about the streetcar.

You think James Nash and Brent Larkin are talking to each other..... or being fed by the same critics?

 

Passenger rail plan laden with baggage: Brent Larkin

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/07/passenger_rail_plan_laden_with.html

Nice to get some real information for a change.  He makes a lot of sense.

Sure, if you don't know anything about transportation which Brent continues to show.

 

In fact, Larkin doesn't do much fact-checking for this or many other subjects. Here's a guy who rips Marc Dann and Youngstown by saying "what do you expect from a native of Youngstown?" Dann is from Shaker Heights. And Youngstown is doing better at attracting new jobs than any of the other Big Eight cities in Ohio right now.

 

But if he tells you what you want to hear and not what the truth is, bless you both and God help the rest of us.

I can't believe this stuff gets published...

 

To summarize the article:

One day i bought a hamburger at a restaurant in Boston for $20 and therefore i thought all hamburgers everywhere in the world should cost $20.

 

http://www.columbusunderground.com/odot-interview-with-jolene-molitoris-3c-corridor

 

ODOT Interview with Jolene Molitoris: 3C Corridor

By Walker | July 6, 2010 3:15pm

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation is responsible for a wide variety of highway upgrades and maintenance projects throughout Central Ohio, but two of the largest local projects currently in development are the Interstate 70/71 “Split Fix” and the 3C Corridor Passenger Rail system.

 

We recently sat down with Jolene Molitoris, Director of ODOT, to discuss both of these projects. Part one of our interview focuses on the 3C Corridor and can be found below. Part two of our interview focuses on the “Split Fix” and will be posted tomorrow afternoon.

Interesting interview.  I look forward to part II. 

 

I was dismayed, however, to see that the interviewer referred to highways as having a dedicated source of funding and the ODOT director failed to point out that those gas taxes don't cover the full cost to maintain the roads.  Without that caveat, the casual reader is left (again) with the impression that gas taxes make highways self-sufficient.

You think James Nash and Brent Larkin are talking to each other..... or being fed by the same critics?

 

Passenger rail plan laden with baggage: Brent Larkin

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/07/passenger_rail_plan_laden_with.html

 

Yes, that's the third time I've seen that 1935 NYC schedule quote.

 

"Holding hands...making highway-only plans...while the jukebox plays our favorite one-note symphony..." Apologies to Billy Paul  :roll:

 

BTW, the reference to New York Central schedules from 1935 also showed up in a message on Linking Ohio's facebook page, dated June 2. There is no doubt that someone is spreading negative talking points to the media and others.

I am looking through old documents to provide some interesting comparisons to other routes, but in the meantime the information presented here might be of interest....

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/05cb1d67f4.pdf

Since I have a 1934 edition of The Official Guide of the Railways, I thought I'd check to see just how important this speed issue was to other corridors that lost service but regained it thanks to state support since 1980. While most passenger rail corridors are faster since 1934, they aren't much faster and yet make fewer station stops today and offer far fewer trains. If anything, the following reveals the lack of investment in passenger rail in America in recent decades -- something that is finally getting addressed for the first time since World War II.

 

Here are my findings.....

 

Hiawatha Corridor (Chicago-Milwaukee, 85 miles)

First year (1989) running time: 1 hour, 28 minutes (2 enroute stops)

Present running time: 1 hour, 30 minutes (3 enroute stops)

1934 running time (same Milwaukee Road route): from 1 hour, 45 minutes (0 enroute stops) to 2 hours (four enroute stops) depending on train

 

Missouri River Runner (St. Louis-Kansas City, 283 miles)

First year (1980) running time: from 5 hours, 35 minutes (4 enroute stops) to 5 hours, 50 minutes (4 enroute stops);

Present running time: 5 hours, 40 minutes (8 enroute stops);

1934 running time (same Missouri Pacific route): from 7 hours, 5 minutes (27 enroute stops) to 8 hours, 25 minutes (21 stops).

 

Pere Marquette (Chicago-Grand Rapids, 176 miles):

First year (1984) running time: 3 hours, 55 minutes (six enroute stops);

Present running time: 4 hours (three enroute stops);

1934 running time (same Pere Marquette route): from 4 hours, 40 minutes (16 enroute stops) to 6 hours, 45 minutes (20 enroute stops).

 

Heartland Flyer (Oklahoma City-Fort Worth, 206 miles):

First year (1999) running time: 4 hours, 35 minutes (5 enroute stops);

Present running time: 4 hours, 14 minutes (5 enroute stops);

1934 running time (same Santa Fe route): from 5 hours, 5 minutes (7 enroute stops) to 6 hours (21 enroute stops).

 

Cascades (Vancouver-Eugene, 467 miles):

First year (1993) running time: initially limited to Eugene-Seattle (310 miles) offering running times from 6 hours, 35 minutes to 8 hours, 5 minutes (8 enroute stops);

Present running time: 14 hours, 10 minutes (17 enroute stops with enroute change of trains) to 23 hours, 25 minutes (15 enroute stops, requires overnight in Seattle);

1934 running time (same Great Northern/Southern Pacific route): from 18 hours, 35 minutes (44 enroute stops) to 20 hours, 35 minutes (67 enroute stops).

 

Piedmont (Charlotte-Raleigh, 173 miles):

First year (1991) running time: 4 hours (6 enroute stops);

Present running time: 3 hours, 12 minutes to 3 hours, 24 minutes (7 enroute stops);

1934 running time (same Southern Railway route but change of train was required at Greensboro for all Charlotte-Raleigh travel): from 5 hours, 10 minutes (16 enroute stops) to 5 hours, 35 minutes (19 enroute stops).

 

Downeaster (Boston-Portland, 116 miles):

First year (2002) running time: 2 hours, 45 minutes (5 enroute stops);

Present running time: 2 hours, 25 minutes (8 enroute stops);

1934 running time (same Boston & Maine route): from 2 hours, 15 minutes (0 enroute stops) to 3 hours, 9 minutes (13 enroute stops).

 

Pennsylvanian (New York City-Pittsburgh, 444 miles):

First year (1980) running time: from 8 hours, 54 minutes (14 enroute stops and a change of train) to 9 hours, 10 minutes (14 enroutes stops and a change of train);

Present running time: from 9 hours, 15 minutes (14 enroute stops) to 9 hours, 40 minutes (15 enroute stops);

1934 running time (same Pennsylvania Railroad route): from 8 hours, 59 minutes (6 enroute stops) to 11 hours, 25 minutes (16 enroute stops).

 

 

Here are some other corridors in the Midwest-Northeast region that never lost service and/or aren't state-supported routes.....

 

 

Empire Corridor (New York City-Buffalo, 437 miles):

First year (1971) running time: from 8 hours, 5 minutes (7 enroute stops) to 8 hours, 10 minutes (11 enroute stops);

Present running time: from 8 hours, 9 minutes (13 enroute stops) to 9 hours, 17 minutes (6 enroute stops);

1934 running time (same New York Central route): from 8 hours, 30 minutes (six enroute stops) to 11 hours, 46 minutes (23 enroute stops).

 

Wolverine Corridor (Chicago-Detroit, 281 miles):

First year (1971) running time: 5 hours, 50 minutes (5 enroute stops);

Present running time: from 5 hours, 30 minutes (8 enroute stops) to 5 hours, 53 minutes (9 enroute stops);

1934 running time (same New York Central route): from 5 hours, 30 minutes (7 enroute stops) to 9 hours (36 enroute stops).

 

Lincoln Corridor (Chicago-St. Louis, 284 miles):

First year (1971) running time: from 5 hours, 15 minutes to 5 hours, 38 minutes (7 enroute stops);

Present running time: from 5 hours, 20 minutes (four enroute stops) to 5 hours, 57 minutes (7 enroute stops);

1934 running time (same Chicago & Alton route): from 6 hours, 30 minutes (11 enroute stops) to 8 hours, 55 minutes (49 enroute stops).

 

So there it is. What slows 3C down today is that, what was a single through rail corridor prior to 1999 has since been subdivided by freight railroads CSX and NS into different routes to serve their enlarged and restructured systems. The result is that the 3C Corridor is no longer one through route, but divided into six different operating divisions for use among other freight routing scenarios. So each time a 3C train is "handed-off" between operating divisions and certainly between different railroad owners, some "recovery" time must be built into each 3C train's schedule for each hand-off (typically up to 10 minutes per hand-off). There are, of course, ways to defeat this. Some is through improved signaling technology, some is through improved infrastructure and the rest is through increased familiarity gained through repitition. The first two require capital investment. The third requires patience and understanding. Too bad certain reactionary Ohio officials don't seem to have the appetite for either of these.

Excellent piece from The National Journal who asked the following of a panel of 10 transportation eperts...

 

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Will High-Speed Rail Drive Business?

 

By Tom Madigan

NationalJournal.com

 

Does a recent report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors touting the economic benefits of high-speed passenger rail put to rest questions about HSR's value as a business engine?

 

The report focused on four hub cities: Albany, N.Y.; Chicago; Los Angeles; and Orlando. Despite the differences of these hubs, the report found that high-speed rail networks had similar effects in all of them, including expanding markets; making business travel more efficient; and encouraging mixed-use development. Among its conclusions, the report argued for looking at these networks "in the broader context of a changing economy" that includes more long-distance tourism and business travel, and ever-wider markets and supply chains.

 

The full story and the 10 expert opinions at: http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2010/07/will-highspeed-rail-drive-busi.php#1601262

Want to know another big reason why 3C passenger trains were able to travel so fast decades ago? Because we had the capacity and infrastructure to accommodate them. Here's some photos showing the extent of trackage that this nation had before public policies forced railroads to "rationalize" their infrastructure to ensure that their traffic capacity matched almost exactly to the traffic using them....

 

Berea, Ohio. Look at all those damn tracks in 1948! It was all owned by New York Central back then. Less than half of those tracks are still there today despite 140 freight trains converging on Berea daily on two separate railroad companies (CSX has the 3C tracks at left, and NS owning the Chicago Line tracks at right, while the connection between them is now just one track):

 

Columbus Union Station aerial, 1947. Again, the trackage looks more like a model railroad layout on steroids. Today, maybe 5 percent of the trackage is still there, hemmed in by the Columbus Convention Center and the Ohio Center:

 

Dayton Union Station from the cab of an arriving train, circa 1950. There were three approach tracks into the area, plus many sidings within the station and outside of the terminal limits to stash trains. All of that is gone today, as there are only two tracks in and near the former station area, over which CSX funnels freight traffic from its busy Cincinnati-Detroit line and NS funnels freight from its busy Columbus-Cincinnati line. Today there is about 60-70 freights between the two companies:

 

Cincinnati Union Terminal, with morning trains departing - NYC's James Whitcomb Riley for Chicago, B&O's National Limited for St. Louis, and L&N's southbound Pan-American for New Orleans. Today approach tracks to CUT lack the capacity to reliably handle more than several new passenger trains per day, let alone simultaneously as in Aug. 20, 1966:

I know we like to hate on roads, but it is worth noting that this investment in railroads was driven by the fact that most of these lines were built when rail basically had a monopoly on high quality transit. Did we over invest in roads, probably, but having a high quality multi-modal system is extremely valuable.

KJP, you should try to get a before and after pic from BE tower, just to show the difference!

I was thinking about it, and the best place to look for such a photo might be at http://www.railpictures.net/ but people kept giving me assignments to do today to help them develop rail funding requests, develop informational packets, etc. Like I've said before, I spend more of my time as a reference director than as an executive director! That's OK, I like helping people with that kind of stuff.

 

  Since railroads pay property taxes on their infrastructure, they have an added incentive to minimize their infrastructure.

 

  It's not fair that highways don't pay property taxes, blah blah blah, but could you imagine how things might have turned out if the State of Ohio had to pay property taxes to the local government for highways?

I was dismayed, however, to see that the interviewer referred to highways as having a dedicated source of funding and the ODOT director failed to point out that those gas taxes don't cover the full cost to maintain the roads. Without that caveat, the casual reader is left (again) with the impression that gas taxes make highways self-sufficient.

 

 

Sorry if I didn't make that very clear. I consider the readership of Columbus Underground to be a bit more informed than the average "casual reader" but I didn't mean to leave this type of impression. My point in asking was more about having committed funds to circumvent the voting process to allocate funds for every single new rail project in the future, not to imply that any type of transit was completely self sufficient on those types of revenue sources.

>Since railroads pay property taxes on their infrastructure,

 

Don't forget that the ICC set a target profit of 6%, and that control continued for decades after the railroad monopoly was broken by government-built highways.  There was no equivalent federal agency penalizing trucking companies for excess profits.  There haven't been any incidents in trucking history either where the government took over total control, as happened to the railroads during WWI. 

 

 

KJP...great use of the above photos to illustrate your point. Ohio had over 9,000 miles of active railroad track in the mid 1960's.  Today, according to the Association of American Railroads, Ohio has barely over 5,000 miles.

People that are making a big deal about the contract with PB not being executed have no idea how ODOT works. My company got a highway resurfacing job from that same Programmatic that the 3C Tier 2 was on and we don't have authorization to proceed either...its 4-6 months from selection, and the negotiations on the 3C project probably were a little more dicey than usual.

Just shows how the critics will pick on something they perceive as a weakness or a problem and wave it around as if it had dire meaning.  Your point is well taken Mr. Sparkle: all transportation projects take a long time in the planning and review process.

 

Can one imagine how these same critics would howl if passenger trains were just rolled onto the existing rail system with no preparation or corridor improvements? Larkin & Co. would be all over it screaming "foul!".

I know we like to hate on roads...

 

I wouldn't say hate roads.  What we don't like is that we've over-invested in roads and deliberately ignored the wide array of benefits of and need for a truly balanced, well integrated transportation system. Roads were supposed to give us choice over the "robber baron railroads".  Now, we have no alternative in most of the country to what is the equivalent of forced car ownership.

 

By the way, I read Brent Larkin's latest inaccurate, uninformed, ignorant hit-piece.  How did he make it so far in the newspaper business with such lousy research skills?  Another reason not to subscribe to the PD. 

Columnist Larkin apparently doesn't feel any obligation to be either fair orn accurate.  He offers nothing to back up his "anecdotal" claim that most Ohioans are against the 3C project.  He regurgitates thae same drivel we have heard so many times from some legislators and prfessional rail critics.

 

I would simply ask of him:  "Why do you so hate the thought of Ohioans ... all Ohioans.... having greater travel choice than they've had for several decades of being almost welded to the car keys and the gasoline pump?

KJP...great use of the above photos to illustrate your point. Ohio had over 9,000 miles of active railroad track in the mid 1960's.  Today, according to the Association of American Railroads, Ohio has barely over 5,000 miles.

 

Yes, and the 5,000 miles that are left have been downsized from four tracks to two, from two tracks to one, signal systems that allowed 90-100 mph speeds removed, stations and passenger train layover and maintenance facilities removed. On top of that, this slimmed down physical plant handles far more freeight than in the past.

Consolidation has also gotten us the mess we have now in Queensgate.  While there certainly were yards there in the past, only the B&O and Cincinnati Southern had any significant yard facilities there until fairly recently, and those were mostly inner-city terminal yards.  The large classification yards were scattered all over the city and outlying areas.  Nearly all these yards have been reduced to nothing more than a few side tracks today.

 

Storrs Yard for the B&O, adjacent to the Waldvogel Viaduct.

 

Riverside/Sedamsville Yard for the Big Four to Indiana (very large)

 

Sharon Yard for the Big Four to Columbus (very large)

 

Undercliff Yard in Linwood for the PRR/Little Miami (very large)

 

Summit/Cheviot Yard at Glenway Crossing for the C&O of Indiana to Chicago

 

Clare Yard in Mariemont for the N&W to Portsmouth

 

Silver Grove, KY yard for the C&O (very large)

 

Decoursy Yard near Taylor Mill, KY for the L&N (huge)

 

So virtually all of the activity that once took place in these many yards is now concentrated into the Queensgate and Gest Street yards.  It's no wonder they're having trouble getting passenger trains into there. 

^ An excellent point. 

 

What is the status of the land these yards once occupied?  Are any of them in a position to relieve the congestion in and around Queensgate if they were reactivated?

A problem with many of these old yards is that they don't accommodate the heavy north-south movement of freight through the area.

 

Storrs Yard is gone and some of the land is taken up for the rebuilding of the Waldvogel Viaduct.  There's still some space, but it's not very big, and it's on a tight curve right near the river. 

 

Riverside/Sedamsville Yard has no tracks left, but all the land is still there.  I think the trouble is that it's along two lightly-used lines that don't connect through to the overall system well. 

 

Sharon Yard would be a good one to expand, though it looks like a lot of the land has been rededicated to intermodal transfer of freight from train to truck.  More than half the original land is now for truck movements instead of tracks. 

 

Undercliff Yard has been mostly sold off for industrial parks.  The yard used to extend almost all the way to Wilmer Avenue.  It's also now on a line that dead-ends and is only accessible by a single-track line (I don't think it was ever double-track to begin with). 

 

Summit/Cheviot Yard is now the Glenway Crossing shopping center, and that whole rail line was pulled up through there anyway.

 

Clare Yard is now used for intermodal transfer of freight from trains to trucks.  It's not particularly big anyway, and suffers the same access problems as Undercliff.

 

Silver Grove was sold off and now most of the land is occupied by the LaFarge drywall plant.

 

Decoursy Yard actually appears to be two separate yards.  The original classification yard is partly under I-275, though the bulk of it is south of there.  That has been completely abandoned, though the land is still open.  There's what appears to be a newer maintenance and intermodal transfer yard south of there, which appears heavily used.  This would be the only yard that could see extensive use in the current freight pattern without having to do a lot of new property acquisition and shifting of existing facilities, as far as I can tell anyway. 

3C Rail debate draws confrontational lines

 

BY LARRY PHILLIPS

CentralOhio.com

 

MANSFIELD -- Ohio's proposed high-speed rail could merely brush through north central Ohio, but the region is taking shape as an epicenter for the political fight surrounding the plan.

 

Designs call for the 3C Rail project to connect Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati with passenger rail service. Shelby and Galion are in contention for a proposed station after the second phase of the route is complete.

 

Crestline still wants to be considered for a stop, and it revamped its lobbying efforts through an Ashland marketing firm.

 

Full story at: http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/article/20100713/NEWS01/7130304

"Harris referred to California's high-speed rail project, which he noted was recently criticized by that state's auditor as being poorly managed, plagued with unauthorized purchases and including millions of dollars in misspent funds."

 

Yes, because their service was mismanaged ours will necessarily be mismanaged the same way.  By the same logic, Since Republican Mark Souder had an affair, all Republicans are having affairs.  Go go gadget logical fallacy!

California's wasn't even mismanaged. They're building a much larger, faster system on the foundation of the conventional-speed system in which they've invested $2 billion since 1990. So a $5 billion to $15 billion investment in 21st century infrastructure and jobs is bad?

This is what Senator Husted says when there is no logical response except to say, "yep, this will create jobs, they're right about that"..

 

Ohio has ‘manufacturing spine’ to grow jobs with rebirth of rail travel

 

By Jim DeBrosse, Staff Writer Updated 1:24 AM Tuesday, July 13, 2010

 

DAYTON — Ohio could create thousands of new manufacturing jobs if rail service can get the push it needs from the proposed 3C Corridor Passenger Rail Project and the federal Surface Transportation Act, according to Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Ohio Secretary of Transportation Jolene Molitoris, who brought their pro-rail message Monday, July 12, to Dayton.

 

“We know how to build big ... things in Ohio and here in the Miami Valley,” Brown said at the Dayton-Phoenix Group plant in Old North Dayton, a maker of locomotive parts. “It’s time the United States began to breathe new life into the rail industry.”

 

....But Ohio Sen. Jon Husted, R-Kettering, said $400 million spent on any industry would benefit that industry but not necessarily taxpayers.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/ohio-has-manufacturing-spine-to-grow-jobs-with-rebirth-of-rail-travel-808491.html

Husted fails to account for how passenger rail (and the demand for equipment) is developing in other states, which could also be a source of business for Ohio companies.  But it seems he would rather see that business...and the jobs that go with it.... go some place other than Ohio.  Nothing more than a myopic idealogue.

All Aboard Ohio calls on policymakers

to end transportation double-standard!

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — July 13, 2010

 

Contact:

Ken Prendergast

All Aboard Ohio Executive Director

(216) 288-4883

[email protected]

 

 

A statewide nonprofit organization today urged all policymakers, and especially Ohio’s most partisan fiscal conservatives, to end a “double standard” when addressing different modes of transportation. In doing so, All Aboard Ohio noted that, for comparable trips in the Cleveland – Columbus – Dayton – Cincinnati (3C) Corridor, highway subsidies are 10 times greater than what will be offered to 3C rail passengers.

 

For too long, passenger rail and public transportation are uniquely held to a higher standard in that they should pay for themselves while roads, aviation and waterways all receive significant public funding and subsidy without criticism or even acknowledgement, said Bill Hutchison, president of All Aboard Ohio, a nonprofit educational organization. 

 

“Phony fiscal conservatives keep swatting at the railroad flea while ignoring the highway elephant because they’re afraid the elephant is going to step on them,” Hutchison said. “Instead, true fiscal conservatives need to be concerned that the elephant is in danger of collapsing of its own weight. More and better trains and transit can help prevent that collapse.”

 

“Subsidies for roads and highways which get 86 percent of all government funding for transportation [per U.S. Dept. of Transportation] force huge overspending by the public sector for other costs like supporting Ohioans isolated from jobs, managing storm water runoff in sprawling suburbs, military costs to keep oil shipping lanes open, and environmental degradation such as from the Gulf oil spill. If these costs were paid as we drove, we would be watching a toll meter on our dashboard spinning like the score counter on a pinball machine,” Hutchison added.

 

He referred readers to the following data….

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/f0044349e5.pdf

Passenger Rail in OH Could Put Business on the Right Track

July 13, 2010

 

RIVERSIDE, Ohio - The Ohio Department of Transportation says the federally funded 3-C corridor passenger rail project is on track, and that could be very good economic news for the cities along the route. The train would link Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati, with possible stops in other cities such as Riverside, the home of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

 

Riverside Director of Economic Development and Planning Bob Murray says developers are already looking at parcels of land along the tracks in his community.

 

"Several very large developers are examining the site to make what's known as a transit-oriented district."

 

Murray says the land was viewed as marginal at best before there was talk of passenger rail service.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/14921-1

Good quotes by Phil Parker, president and chief executive officer of the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce, at the link below...

 

Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 8:29am EDT

ODOT chief touts rail to Dayton audience

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Joe Cogliano Courier Contributor

 

The state’s top transportation official says a proposed rail development is drawing the interest of national developers to the Dayton area.

 

Jolene Molitoris, director of the Ohio Department of Transportation, was at the Rotary Club of Dayton on Monday to update about 150 local business leaders on the 3-C passenger rail initiative. Molitoris said construction and development impact in the area surrounding stops in Dayton and the nearby town of Riverside will exceed the $400 million investment in rail across the state.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2010/07/12/daily12.html?ana=e

Yup....nice to see such good quotes and a straight-up reporting of the story.

Good quotes by Phil Parker, president and chief executive officer of the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce, at the link below...

 

Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 8:29am EDT

ODOT chief touts rail to Dayton audience

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Joe Cogliano Courier Contributor

 

The states top transportation official says a proposed rail development is drawing the interest of national developers to the Dayton area.

 

Jolene Molitoris, director of the Ohio Department of Transportation, was at the Rotary Club of Dayton on Monday to update about 150 local business leaders on the 3-C passenger rail initiative. Molitoris said construction and development impact in the area surrounding stops in Dayton and the nearby town of Riverside will exceed the $400 million investment in rail across the state.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2010/07/12/daily12.html?ana=e

 

What's interesting about that article is that it says that Ohio would need to spend $17 million annually to fund 3C rail.  Is there some sort of TIFF district or other property tax around the stations that they plan on levying to collect that money?

No, multiple-city TIFs are very difficult because it requires lots of coordination. There was legislation proposed last year that would allow the state to lead multiple-city TIFs to support transportation projects but the legislation didn't go anywhere.

^Shame.  Thanks for the info.

We will have to hope that it's simply a good general investment. It would be nice to know exactly how each infrastructure dollar made its way through the economy, but you can't TIF everything!

We will have to hope that it's simply a good general investment. It would be nice to know exactly how each infrastructure dollar made its way through the economy, but you can't TIF everything!

 

Agreed.  The fact that people try to just shows how straitjacketed our current state tax regime really is.  They should amend the current property tax laws for special transit assessments that maximize the space in these corridors.

just a thought and idea.  Would it be possible to look at creating an additional one round-trip-per-day express service for the 3C right off the bat?  Maybe only stops in Cincy, Dayton, Columbus, and Downtown Cleveland?  This isnt to upset the other communities on the line; but more to address the criticism of the line being too slow for people to ride the whole way; i would assume this would knock off at least 30-45 minutes from the total route time.

 

I realize this would take a significant amount of study and is somewhat unprecedented but it seems to me like the 3C is kind of unprecedented for a start up with the number and proximity of major cities to be served.