Personally, it's that important to me that I would consider leaving. Having good public transit available is an essential element of where I choose to live.

 

I can sympathize.  As someone who's currently unemployed, but trying to stay here, if the project is killed it's a clear sign to me that it's not really worth the effort to stay, even though I don't see myself getting much use out of the project.  It would show the powers that be simply aren't going to let things improve here, so why bother trying to defend or stay on a sinking ship?  The failure of Issue 9 here in Cincinnati was a big sigh of relief, but not treating 3-C like the huge bargain and no-brainer that it is, while not decrying the widening of I-75, the Brent Spence Bridge, and all the other major highway projects farther north in the state gives me cause to be extremely concerned.  I keep seeing these horrible commercials on TV spouting that Strickland has lost all these jobs for Ohio, never mind that it has nothing to do with him but the whole country/world economic situation.  Every state is in the same predicament.  However, to at the same time try to kill a project that would not only bring new jobs to Ohio, improve already existing Ohio companies, and (even ignoring the passenger component) greatly strengthen our freight handling capabilities is so backwards and insincere that it makes me want to vomit. 

Yeah, this political fight that is going on right now is so silly that I can't imagine a lot of young people who were genuinely interested in investing their adulthoods here are still whole-heartedly willing to do so.  I think we'll continue to see Ohio people move to larger cities in the south and southwest, Chicago, and the coasts; all of which have "lifestyle amenities" that we here in OHio should have but get in our own way.

 

I just think we need to better tie into the vision of a truly connected great lakes and northeast region.  We could/should have every bit of the draw that northern europe has from a tourism standpoint, but we dont because we dont truly invest in/value our cities and their support systems.

I wouldn't say that many people go to the south for amenities.  In fact, most go there because that's where there's jobs.  The amenities in most southern cities are sorely lacking, but they're cheap places to live.  Cincinnati is about as cheap a place to live in as you can find, and it still has some of the best institutions in the country, ESPECIALLY for a city of its size.  It's mind boggling, but people still don't move here.  Why?  There's little work here, partly due to the "old hat" crowd.  These major institutions are behemoths and tend to be rather stolid.  There's little entrepreneurial spirit here, because in part it's squashed by the mountain of vested interests that have spent decades or centuries building up their own hill to be king of.  Thus, those who'd buck the trend and try to achieve something new and risky go elsewhere.  It's the same for the state in general, and even the midwest as a whole.  There's more of a "get up and go" and "we're gonna do the best we can" sort of "can-do" attitude in the south, while here it's more of a "resting on our laurels" or "the good old days" and "can't do" mentality. 

 

I see this sort of thing when I go to visit my parents in North Carolina.  That's just as much of a red state as here, if not more so.  Being in the south, the state department of transportation is rather out of control, and it's highways and sprawl galore.  I haven't been to Charlotte, but Winston-Salem, Greensboro, Raleigh-Durham, and Fayetteville area all pretty awful places.  Asheville is a little gem, and actually has a very similar feel to Cincinnati, with a lot more bang for the buck than you'd expect.  Still, most of the cities are chock full of traffic, are building more and more highways, and are just plain nasty.  However, they've been building up their rail system for years, and it's gaining ridership and improving service.  If I lived in Washington DC or anywhere on the east coast, I could take the daily train to within 9 miles of Mom and Dad's house.  The Pinehurst/Southern Pines/Aberdeen area (population about 40,000 total) actually has better passenger rail service than Cincinnati.  I wouldn't have even known they had any passenger rail if it weren't for all the "North Carolina By Train" signs they put up along the highways.  If there's a station nearby, they advertise the hell out of it.  Do we hear much about their system?  No, but despite the ever present road bias, they're still having a go at it, and seeing success.  We should be so lucky to follow their lead. 

Personally, it's that important to me that I would consider leaving. Having good public transit available is an essential element of where I choose to live.

 

I would too, but I'm stuck here for various reasons for the foreseeable future.  I'm going to have to make the best of it for a while...

 

Germany just came out with a peak oil report with similar conclusions the Pentagon released early this year:  oil price spikes within 3 years, depletion setting in after 2014.  This may be our last chance to start building an alternative to our oil-guzzling transportation system before the fecal matter hits the rotary oscillator.  Predictions are a tricky thing, though (Matt Simmons was going certainly going to lose his bet about $200/bbl oil this year, but he died of a heart attack last month).  Only time will tell. 

 

 

Peak oil messages were moved here:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2706.0.html

 

  "I would too, but I'm stuck here for various reasons..."

 

  I don't need to know what your reasons are, but suffice it to say that there's more than one reason for choosing where to live.

 

  Gee, from the posts on this forum one would think that Ohio would be empty by now.

Gee, from the posts on this forum one would think that Ohio would be empty by now.

 

It might be, if not for the fact that many other states are just as bad if not worse. 

 

    I guess you could move to France. They have an excellent subway system, regional rail, and high speed rail.

 

  Then again, their grocery stores don't open until 10:00 a.m.

 

    I guess you could move to France. They have an excellent subway system, regional rail, and high speed rail.

 

 

So do most developed countries, as well as many developing countries.

 

  KJP, if you can't beat them, join them.

 

  Don't forget to send us photos.  :-D

I understand where you're coming from KJP.  I have lived in CA for the past 14 yrs and have a career that will allow me to live almost anywhere.  My wife and I have decided to move back to the Cleveland area to be closer to family, but when I hear politicians opposing progressive changes that will cost relatively little, simply to create a wedge issue, it drives me nuts.  I, like the majority of young skilled workers, are looking for a progressive place to live that has strong urban areas with good public transportation.  If OH officials are serious about attracting highly skilled and educated workers, then they need to push for the 3C as well as other public transit issues.  Ohio already has a bad rep amongst the "creative class" and that rep is about to get worse rather than better.

I understand the feeling, but why the heck is everyone talking about leaving two months before we even have an election?  This fight ain't over.  We have a clear choice for Governor if you support the 3C.  Now, we need to be asking our local candidates for the Ohio General Assembly where they stand.  If you support the 3C and greater expansion of passenger rail, let them know your vote depends on it.  And make some noise in your local papers with letters to the editor or in on-line comments that follow any media coverage.

 

Sorry folks, but it's the coach in me.  You don't stop playing the game until the last out.  :box:

Hopefully nothing comes of Kasich's idiocy, but it's more than just that.  The 3-C should be a done deal, we have the money, the project is proceeding, so it should be off-limits to this sort of political nonsense by now.  Even if it wasn't already so far along, it shouldn't be a partisan issue to begin with.  The fact that we need to play the game at all is the problem.  We already beat the game, we don't want to play the second quest, and we shouldn't have to. 

Hopefully nothing comes of Kasich's idiocy, but it's more than just that. The 3-C should be a done deal, we have the money, the project is proceeding, so it should be off-limits to this sort of political nonsense by now. Even if it wasn't already so far along, it shouldn't be a partisan issue to begin with. The fact that we need to play the game at all is the problem. We already beat the game, we don't want to play the second quest, and we shouldn't have to.

 

Love the Zelda reference. :D

 

Yeah, the whole situation is just ridiculous. This is exactly the kind of thing which gives Ohio its negative reputation and pushes people away (we all know a number of them, right?).

 

I'm glad to see the Cincy streetcar moving forward, otherwise the 3C battle would be much more grating.

As if it weren't "grating" enough...and here we go again with this whole "sustainable" thing.... I wonder if the Dispatch has ever editorialized about the "sustainability" of highway projects?

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/09/05/not-on-track.html?sid=101

 

Not on track

Federal grant’s conditions call into question whether 3C rail line is sustainable

Sunday, September 5, 2010  03:00 AM

 

The proposed 3C passenger-rail line increasingly appears to be a plan that has put the caboose before the locomotive.

 

In January, Ohio learned of the success of its application for federal stimulus money to develop a passenger-train line linking Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Dayton. The federal government is sending $400 million in start-up money to Ohio, but it will cover only about three-fourths the cost of upgrading track and acquiring trains. And after that, Amtrak estimates, Ohio taxpayers will have to pay $17 million per year in subsidies just to keep the trains running.

 

Full editorial at above link:

 

I understand the feeling, but why the heck is everyone talking about leaving two months before we even have an election?  This fight ain't over.  We have a clear choice for Governor if you support the 3C.  Now, we need to be asking our local candidates for the Ohio General Assembly where they stand.  If you support the 3C and greater expansion of passenger rail, let them know your vote depends on it.  And make some noise in your local papers with letters to the editor or in on-line comments that follow any media coverage.

 

Sorry folks, but it's the coach in me.  You don't stop playing the game until the last out.  :box:

 

Put me in coach. I'm ready to play! :-D I'm not quite ready to give up yet.

 

 

 

As if it weren't "grating" enough...and here we go again with this whole "sustainable" thing.... I wonder if the Dispatch has ever editorialized about the "sustainability" of highway projects?

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/09/05/not-on-track.html?sid=101

 

Not on track

Federal grant’s conditions call into question whether 3C rail line is sustainable

Sunday, September 5, 2010  03:00 AM

 

The proposed 3C passenger-rail line increasingly appears to be a plan that has put the caboose before the locomotive.

 

In January, Ohio learned of the success of its application for federal stimulus money to develop a passenger-train line linking Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Dayton. The federal government is sending $400 million in start-up money to Ohio, but it will cover only about three-fourths the cost of upgrading track and acquiring trains. And after that, Amtrak estimates, Ohio taxpayers will have to pay $17 million per year in subsidies just to keep the trains running.

 

Full editorial at above link:

 

 

WTF??!! These guys are idiots!  :shoot:

 

  KJP, if you can't beat them, join them.

 

  Don't forget to send us photos.  :-D

 

I'm not joining the highway lobby!

 

And when is a lifeboat more comfortable than a great ship?

 

 

I understand the feeling, but why the heck is everyone talking about leaving two months before we even have an election?

 

 

For the same reason you've considered it. Maine is a nice state. I always plan ahead and consider my options.

 

  KJP, if you can't beat them, join them.

 

  Don't forget to send us photos. :-D

 

I'm not joining the highway lobby!

 

And when is a lifeboat more comfortable than a great ship?

 

 

I understand the feeling, but why the heck is everyone talking about leaving two months before we even have an election?

 

 

For the same reason you've considered it. Maine is a nice state. I always plan ahead and consider my options.

 

As far as I am concerned, I'll see how this plays out and then go from there. I have to say things don't look good, tho.

As if it weren't "grating" enough...and here we go again with this whole "sustainable" thing.... I wonder if the Dispatch has ever editorialized about the "sustainability" of highway projects?

 

$17,000,000/11 million Ohioans => $1.50 per Ohioan per year.

 

Where was the outrage after ODOT/Proctor wasted $70 million on slightly-more-reflective signs on the interstates: http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=61169&provider=top

 

The Beacon Journal identified the $2 Billion prison budget as *the* place to make budget cuts.

 

Will Ohio finally curb its expanding and expensive prison system?

 

Published on Thursday, Aug 12, 2010

 

Ohio legislators have run out of reasons not to repair the state's criminal justice system. Confronting crowded jails and prisons and the soaring costs of the system, lawmakers have stalled for more than a year on a bill that would target key contributing factors to the problems. Legislative leaders ordered a study, to be sure they had a firm grasp of the issues. They got it. The Justice Center of the nonpartisan Council of State Governments released a report last month that laid bare Ohio's overburdened criminal justice system.

 

With the details of a creaking system in hand and Ohio's financial troubles unresolved, it is encouraging that Bill Harris plans to revisit proposals to make a number of changes to criminal sentencing laws. The president of the Republican-controlled Senate indicated recently he would take up Senate Bill 22 when lawmakers return after the summer break.

 

The Senate's criminal justice committee narrowly approved the bill last year. Gov. Ted Strickland supports the proposals. Still, opposition from Republicans and county law enforcement officials prevented the measure from reaching the Senate floor.

 

The inaction has been inexcusable. Ohio's prisons are roughly 30 percent above capacity, the annual cost approaching $2 billion. Studies, including the latest one, show the problem mostly stems from consigning more offenders to prison for low-level crimes handled more effectively in community-based corrections facilities — at significantly lower cost.

 

...snip...

 

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/opinions/100510399.html

As if it weren't "grating" enough...and here we go again with this whole "sustainable" thing.... I wonder if the Dispatch has ever editorialized about the "sustainability" of highway projects?

 

$17,000,000/11 million Ohioans => $1.50 per Ohioan per year.

 

Where was the outrage after ODOT/Proctor wasted $70 million on slightly-more-reflective signs on the interstates: http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=61169&provider=top

 

 

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/opinions/100510399.html [/font]

 

Indeed. Where WAS the Dispatch? A lot of nagging questions about them. Aside from that, there has never been any attempt on the part of the Dispatch to see first hand what is going on in the other states who support rail. Instead all we hear are the same tired negatives we've heard from naysayers since day one.

 

And what of that $17 million? The Dispatch has been told that of that amount, all but $3.4 million is to be paid for by the feds for the first three years. That amounts to just 29 cents per capita annually or little more than two cents per month. We can't afford that??? Even at the full $17 million level, we are only talking $1.60 annually on a per capita basis. That's around 13.3 cents a month. That's before any tax revenues from new jobs created by the trains are factored in. Preliminary evidence shows that state will reap financial benefits far in excess of any costs.

 

Meanwhile, we spend about $105.00 per capita in highway subsidies every year. There's something more than just blindness at work here. What we really have is a willful distortion on the part of the Dispatch and others to force an outcome that favors John Kasich, whom the Dispatch will no doubt endorse for election.

 

In a perverse way, I hope that if Kasich wins and kills 3-C, we end up with the next oil shock right in the middle of his first term. He and all the naysayers who will have killed the trains will have only themselves to blame. Ohioans likewise will have set themselves up for a fall and will only have themselves to blame. This state will pay a very high price for its myopia.

 

I had a  conversation about the way Ohio seems to be going with KJP and he said, "Well, nothing says Ohio has to remain a major state forever." Those of us who have choices might leave, but we will also be leaving behind a tragedy Ohio inflicted on itself.

 

As Chrissie Hynde said....."I went to Ohio...but but my city was gone...there was no train station..."

I think some people saying Ohio has an $8 billion budget deficit and that the $17 million 3C subsidy is too much to handle are using marketing tricks to affect people.  A $17 million subsidy isn't that much in an $8,000 million budget shortfall.  It affects the same people who, when they see something for $2.99, say it costs $2(I know its not everyone, but I know a disturbing number of people who think this way).

I don't look at it as a marketing trick, because the same thing will be said about the next "must-have" big spending project.

You mean the $9.2 billion worth of 3C highway projects for which the state doesn't have the $3.2 billion to operate and maintain but is pressing ahead anyway? Yet there isn't a peep of complaint from so-called fiscal conservatives or newspapers like the Dispatch who are being such good watchdogs of our tax dollars?

 

Now why do you think $400 million in capital construction + $17 million in operating costs for rail is such a controversy, while $9.2 billion in capital construction and $3.2 billion in operating for roads is not? Perhaps it's because one interest group is more politically connected than the other and this has nothing to do with what's best for Ohio?

In a perverse way, I hope that if Kasich wins and kills 3-C, we end up with the next oil shock right in the middle of his first term.

 

According to a study released by the Pentagon earlier this year, you may very well get your wish...

 

Anyway, regarding the Dispatch... they obviously have no concern for the truth and no desire to do what it takes to properly and fully inform people about this project.  "Ohio's Greatest Daily Newspaper"?, don't make me laugh. 

By the way, here's Dispatch editor Ben Marrison's contact info:

 

[email protected]

 

614.461.8827

 

 

 

In a perverse way, I hope that if Kasich wins and kills 3-C, we end up with the next oil shock right in the middle of his first term.

 

According to a study released by the Pentagon earlier this year, you may very well get your wish...

 

Anyway, regarding the Dispatch... they obviously have no concern for the truth and no desire to do what it takes to properly and fully inform people about this project. "Ohio's Greatest Daily Newspaper"?, don't make me laugh.

 

New slogan for the Dispatch: Ohio's Greatest FARCE

Considering this is likely to get some action after the election....

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/09/06/president-obama-promotes-50-billion-in-transportation-investments-again-emphasizes-rail/

 

I wonder what Ohio projects could be hustled out the door in time to be eligible for this funding? Could a few "Quick Start" projects be broken out early from the PEIS, such as for Detroit-Toledo-Cleveland and Cleveland-Pittsburgh? Columbus and Springfield have funding-ready intermodal station projects. Cincinnati Union Terminal access as well as the Cleveland intermodal station are going into preliminary engineering. Anything else that local or regional governments or possibly Amtrak could pursue with the aid of, but not direct involvement by the state government?

 

My problem obviously isn't with ODOT or ORDC, obviously. Instead it is with an Ohio Senate that has way too many extremists, pay-to-players and 1950s left-behinds. When you have a transportation committee chair in the Ohio Senate who says rail is "obsolete" (as he did last week on NPR), it's clear that he does not want to have anything to do with rail. What a coincidence since we don't want to have anything to do with him. Therefore the legislature should be avoided wherever possible.

Considering this is likely to get some action after the election....

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/09/06/president-obama-promotes-50-billion-in-transportation-investments-again-emphasizes-rail/

 

I wonder what Ohio projects could be hustled out the door in time to be eligible for this funding? Could a few "Quick Start" projects be broken out early from the PEIS, such as for Detroit-Toledo-Cleveland and Cleveland-Pittsburgh? Columbus and Springfield have funding-ready intermodal station projects. Cincinnati Union Terminal access as well as the Cleveland intermodal station are going into preliminary engineering. Anything else that local or regional governments or possibly Amtrak could pursue with the aid of, but not direct involvement by the state government?

 

My problem obviously isn't with ODOT or ORDC, obviously. Instead it is with an Ohio Senate that has way too many extremists, pay-to-players and 1950s left-behinds. When you have a transportation committee chair in the Ohio Senate who says rail is "obsolete" (as he did last week on NPR), it's clear that he does not want to have anything to do with rail. What a coincidence since we don't want to have anything to do with him. Therefore the legislature should be avoided wherever possible.

 

Sen. Patton's exact quote was... "Trains are dead. The train industry is dying."  :?

 

One would expect Warren Buffett and the CEO's of the five Class 1 railroads to disagree.... not to mention Amtrak which is on a 10-year long ridership growth trend.  Or how about that little industry over in Canton...Timken...which is one of the world's largest producers of railroad roller bearings.

Here's what Obama is proposing...

 

WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET:

 

Renewing and Expanding America’s Roads, Railways, and Runways

The President today laid out a bold vision for renewing and expanding our transportation infrastructure – in a plan that combines a long-term vision for the future with new investments.

 

A significant portion of the new investments would be front-loaded in the first year.

 

This plan would build on the investments we have already made under the Recovery Act, create jobs for American workers to strengthen our economy now, and increase our nation’s growth and productivity in the future. At the same time, the plan would reform the way America currently invests in transportation, changing our focus to enhancing competition, innovation, performance, and real analysis that gets taxpayers the best bang for the buck, while moving away from the earmarks and formula debates of the past. In prior years, transportation infrastructure was an issue that both parties worked on together, and the Administration hopes the same can be true now.

 

Some of the tangible accomplishments of the President’s plan over the next six years include:

 

+ ROADS: Rebuild 150,000 miles of roads – renewing our commitment to the backbone of our transportation system;

+ RAILWAYS: Construct and maintain 4,000 miles of rail – enough to go coast-to-coast;

+ RUNWAYS: Rehabilitate or reconstruct 150 miles of runway – while putting in place a NextGen system that will reduce travel time and delays.

 

 

The President’s plan would accomplish this through:

 

+ An up-front investment. The President will work with Congress to enact a new up-front investment in our nation’s infrastructure – an investment that would help jump-start additional job creation, while also laying the foundation for future growth. This initial investment would fund improvements in the nation’s surface transportation, as well as our airports and air traffic control system.

+ A vision for the future. The President proposes to pair this with a long-term framework to reform and expand our nation’s investment in transportation infrastructure. Since the end of last year, when the last long-term surface transportation legislation expired, these investments have been continued on a temporary basis, even as the trust fund to finance them has fallen into insolvency. If we are to enjoy the benefits that come from a world-class transportation system, Congress must enact a long-term reauthorization that expands and reforms our infrastructure investments and returns the transportation trust fund to solvency. To jumpstart job creation, this long-run policy front-loads – through a $50 billion up-front investment – a significant share of the new infrastructure resources. As with other long-run policies, the Administration is committed to working with Congress to fully pay for the plan.

 

 

The long-term framework includes meaningful reforms:

 

+ The establishment of an Infrastructure Bank to leverage federal dollars and focus on investments of national and regional significance that often fall through the cracks in the current siloed transportation programs;

+ The integration of high-speed rail on an equal footing into the surface transportation program to ensure a sustained and effective commitment to a national high speed rail system over the next generation;

+ Streamlining, modernizing, and prioritizing surface transportation investments, consolidating more than 100 different programs and focusing on using performance measurement and “race-to-the-top” style competitive pressures to drive investment toward better policy outcomes.

+ Expanding investments in areas like safety, environmental sustainability, economic competitiveness, and livability – helping to build communities where people have choices about how to travel, including options that reduce oil consumption, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and expand access to job opportunities and housing that’s affordable.

 

 

Specifically, the President proposes to make the initial up-front investment in the following areas:

 

+ Roads. The nation’s highways serve as the backbone of our transportation system. Many roads and bridges are in need of repair and expansion and many of the Americans who want to do this work face high unemployment right now. Our investments would be focused on modernizing the highway system’s critical assets while providing much-needed jobs.

 

+ Rail. Many parts of transit systems have been allowed to fall into a state of ill-repair. The President’s plan would help address this by making a major new investment in the nation’s bus and rail transit system. The Administration is also committed to expanding public transit systems and would dedicate significant new funding to the “New Starts” program – which supports locally planned, implemented, and operated major transit projects. In addition, the Administration is committed to building on its investments so far in high-speed rail – constructing a system that will increase convenience and productivity, while also reducing our nation’s dependence on oil and cutting down on pollution. The President’s plan would also invest in a long-overdue overhaul of Amtrak’s fleet.

 

+ Runways & NextGen. The Administration proposes to invest in our nation’s airports by improving their runways and other equipment and facilities. We also propose a robust investment in our effort to modernize the nation’s air traffic control system (NextGen). This investment will help both the FAA and airlines to install new technologies and, among other improvements, move from a national ground-based radar surveillance system to a more accurate satellite-based surveillance system – the backbone of a broader effort to reduce delays for passengers, increase fuel efficiency for carriers, and cut airport noise for those who live and work near airports.

 

+ Infrastructure Bank. The President proposes to fund a permanent infrastructure bank. This bank would leverage private and state and local capital to invest in projects that are most critical to our economic progress. This marks an important departure from the federal government’s traditional way of spending on infrastructure through earmarks and formula-based grants that are allocated more by geography and politics than demonstrated value. Instead, the Bank will base its investment decisions on clear analytical measures of performance, competing projects against each other to determine which will produce the greatest return for American taxpayers.

An editorial take on the above posting....

 

September 6, 2010

Rising to the Occasion

By BOB HERBERT

 

On Labor Day afternoon in Milwaukee, President Obama finally began to vigorously push the kind of high-profile, rebuild-America infrastructure campaign that is absolutely essential if there is to be any real hope of putting Americans back to work and getting the economy back into reasonable shape over the next few years.

 

In a speech that was rousing, inspirational and, at times, quite funny, the president outlined a $50 billion proposal for a wide range of improvements to the nation’s transportation infrastructure. The money would be used for the construction and rehabilitation of highways, bridges, railroads, airport runways and the air traffic control system.

 

Full opinion column at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/opinion/07herbert.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

 

Groups back infrastructure investment plan 

 

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/aashto-backs-more-infrastructure-investment.html

 

 

More editorial reaction to President's Infrastructure Investment Plan

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/0907/One-jobs-idea-from-Obama-that-should-fly

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/america-in-the-caboose-wh_b_708570.html

 

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0906_transportation_puentes.aspx

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706848.html

 

http://www.rtands.com/newsflash/various-groups-applaud-presidents-transportation-investment-plan.html

Obama's bridge, train and road fix

 

President Obama is proposing an "infrastructure bank" that might take the pork out of road building.

By Steve Hargreaves, Senior writerSeptember 8, 2010: 2:53 PM ET

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Government transportation spending is full of costly boondoggles.

 

President Obama is proposing a way out of that. As part of a wider spending program he detailed Wednesday that includes tax breaks for businesses and $50 billion in infrastructure spending, the president is floating the idea of an "infrastructure bank."

 

An infrastructure bank is designed to leverage public money with private funds, creating much more bang for the taxpayer buck. It's also designed to take politics out of infrastructure spending by moving the decision making away from Congress to an independent panel. Think of it as a way to avoid more bridges to nowhere.

 

Full story at:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/infrastructure_bank/index.htm?hpt=T1

^It's pretty apparent that they don't really care about thorough research and balance when it comes to this issue. 

 

What's worse, $50-million in road damage from increased steel coil truck loads, which the trucking companies aren't paying plus another $45-million from increased weights for outbound, overseas shipping containers (again unpaid damage), or $17 million/yr for the 3C which the freight benefits of will remove trucks from the road and reduce road damage by $21.2 to $42.4 million annually?

 

What's more useful: $1.6 million/mile for the 3C Quick Start or the $14+ million per mile that ODOT spends on concrete soundwalls?

 

The Dispatch could care less about these  (and other) facts. 

 

 

 

Money From Interstate Blue Signs Could Fund 3C Rail

 

You've seen them while you're driving, the blue signs before interstate ramps, telling you there's food, fuel or lodging available.

 

"I just used one to get off here. I looked, and I was running pretty low on fuel," said Enmartz Anderson, fueling his car at the Sunoco station at the State route 42 and Interstate 70 interchange.

 

Since the early '90s, all the money generated from those signs went to a private company.

 

"ODOT put into place a contract where we have an outside vendor that was responsible for replacing the signs, going after companies that would advertise and executing the contracts," said Scott Varner, deputy director of the Ohio Department of Transportation. "All of those expenses were the companies'. There was no expense to the state."

 

Two years ago, the state negotiated new contracts for those signs and recouped a large yearly profit.

 

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/sep/08/3/money-generated-interstate-blue-signs-could-fund-3-ar-226803/

 

 

Something in the first comment is bothering me, and its something I've heard before.  He's saying that Ohio will have to kick in an additional 175 million plus overruns for the construction, but if I recall correctly the initial proposal was for 575 million which already included a 30% contingency for overruns.  The government basically gave us everything except for our contingecy money, correct?

Money From Interstate Blue Signs Could Fund 3C Rail

 

You've seen them while you're driving, the blue signs before interstate ramps, telling you there's food, fuel or lodging available.

 

"I just used one to get off here. I looked, and I was running pretty low on fuel," said Enmartz Anderson, fueling his car at the Sunoco station at the State route 42 and Interstate 70 interchange.

 

Since the early '90s, all the money generated from those signs went to a private company.

 

"ODOT put into place a contract where we have an outside vendor that was responsible for replacing the signs, going after companies that would advertise and executing the contracts," said Scott Varner, deputy director of the Ohio Department of Transportation. "All of those expenses were the companies'. There was no expense to the state."

 

Two years ago, the state negotiated new contracts for those signs and recouped a large yearly profit.

 

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/sep/08/3/money-generated-interstate-blue-signs-could-fund-3-ar-226803/

 

 

Something in the first comment is bothering me, and its something I've heard before. He's saying that Ohio will have to kick in an additional 175 million plus overruns for the construction, but if I recall correctly the initial proposal was for 575 million which already included a 30% contingency for overruns. The government basically gave us everything except for our contingency money, correct?

 

Corrrect.

Volume #79, Report #178 -- Monday, September 13, 2010

 

Senator Wants Attorney General Lawsuit To Block Spending Of $25 Million For Rail Passenger Line

 

Sen. David Goodman (R-New Albany) said Monday he would ask Attorney General Richard Cordray to file a lawsuit in an attempt to block Gov. Ted Strickland's administration from spending $25 million in federal stimulus cash on a cross-state rail passenger system.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.gongwer-oh.com/programming/news_articledisplay.cfm?article_ID=791780201&newsedition_id=7917802&locid=2&link=news_articledisplay.cfm?article_ID=791780201%26newsedition_id=7917802%26locid=2

 

So is it now a race between how fast the AG files a lawsuit and how fast a contract for the work can be signed, or is there a chance that the AG will say no to the lawsuit?

Cordray will say no to the lawsuit.... I assume.

So is it now a race between how fast the AG files a lawsuit and how fast a contract for the work can be signed, or is there a chance that the AG will say no to the lawsuit?

 

The contract was already signed.

I hope it's not too late but.... 

 

USDOT Sec. Ray LaHood will be on "All Sides with Ann Fisher" on WOSU-Radio at 11:00 a-m (EDT) this morning...  Ann posts on Facebook that she will be asking him (among other things) about the 3C Quick Start and what happens if Ohio doesn't spend the $400-million it was awarded for the project.

 

Listen live at: http://streaming.osu.edu/WOSU-NPRnews-wm.htm

or: Call All Sides at 614-292-8513 or email the show at:  [email protected]

Truth & context about 3C rail is biggest victim in an election year

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 14, 2010

Contact:

Ken Prendergast

All Aboard Ohio Executive Director

(216) 288-4883

[email protected]

 

Five months ago, the State Controlling Board voted to approve using 100 percent federal funds for final engineering of an introductory level of passenger rail service in the 3C Corridor the Midwests busiest intercity travel corridor (according to USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics).

 

That engineering work, negotiations with freight railroads and bid scopes for prospective passenger rail operators would get answers that the projects critics have been asking. Instead, a Republican Ohio Senator now wants the Ohio Attorney Generals office to stop the engineering, claiming a vote by the State Controlling Board to advance the engineering work violated state law.

 

That legal and proper vote was five months ago, said All Aboard Ohio President Bill Hutchison. Now, less than two months before the gubernatorial election, the opposition floats this? Are they afraid that their false and misleading arguments will be nullified by the engineering study? They should be afraid. What is gained by not doing this study? It doesnt save the state treasury any money. The money has to be used for a rail project somewhere whether Ohio uses it or not.

 

Ohios so-called fiscal conservatives claim that this will save the state $17 million per year in 3Cs operating cost six years from now. All but $3.4 million of that much discussed $17 million operating cost will be covered at the federal level for the first three years the line operates. That amounts to annual per-capita cost of 29 cents. The full $17 million cost would not have to be covered until 2016 and even that amounts to only $1.60 annually per-capita. Thats the cost of buying everyone in Ohio one cup of coffee per year. Meanwhile highway subsidies in Ohio are $105 per-capita (source: Federal Highway Administration).

 

The 3C trains will generate large benefits that will more than offset this cost:

 

+ $6.1 million to $7.3 million per year Ohio sales tax revenues from increased consumer activity

+ $5 million to $10 million per year Annual budget offsets from state employees using 3C trains

+ $0.25 million to $0.6 million per year Ohio income tax revenues from direct 3C jobs.

+ $1.2 million to $10.4 million per year Ohio income tax revenues from 3C spin-off jobs.

+ $21.2 million to $42.4 million per year Savings from moving more freight from 3C roads to 3C rails.

+ Total benefits to the state from 3C project: $33.75 million to $70.7 million per year.

 

All Aboard Ohios fiscal analysis of 3C used a variety of data sets, including the U.S. Department of Commerce, Federal Railroad Administration, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, consumer surplus economic impact model, U.S. Census, Amtrak and the freight railroads.

 

Ironically, while so-called fiscal conservatives regardless of party worry about the $17 million operating cost for 3C trains, they havent uttered so much as a peep about worsening highway subsidies. Consider:

 

+ There is bipartisan support for hauling heavier steel shipments by truck but no support for increasing fees on trucks to pay for the damage they will do to Ohios roads: highway subsidy of $50 million per year.

+ There is bipartisan support for increasing truck weights to haul Ohio-based agricultural products but no increase in weight-distance fees to offset the damage to Ohios roads: highway subsidy of $45 million per year.

+ Republicans want to eliminate the late fee on drivers license renewals without coming up with a way to replace the annual loss to Ohios budget: cost to Ohio of $30 million per year.

+ Budget hawks are silent on ODOTs seven-year increase in costs to operate/maintain/support the added highway infrastructure planned/underway (including $9.2 billion in new highway infrastructure in 3C alone!) without an identified way to pay those operating costs: cost to Ohio of $3.3 billion over seven years (or $471 million per year).

 

So how does $17 million per year risk bankrupting the state? Of course it wont. The critics are hoping the media simply reiterates sound bites. This is an important issue, one that deserves full review and exhaustive analysis by the media. We encourage them to verify all data from both sides before redistributing it.

 

Nor does the opposition offer any context for what Ohio is pursuing because it would show Ohio is being fiscally prudent. All states started with a modest rail service and enhanced it; each time ridership grew. Of the 17 most densely populated states, only Hawaii and Ohio do not provide any state financial support for passenger trains. Hawaii is an island with no railroads, but Ohio is literally the "hole in the donut" with major states around us supporting trains. Why is Ohio the odd-man out? Are we that much smarter than our colleague states?

 

Its time Ohio started acting like the nations ninth-most densely populated state with the Midwests busiest intercity travel corridor, not the remote island it pretends to be, Hutchison said.

 

END

Listening now...good stuff. Does anyone still think we'll see a 2012 start date for the 3C?

Lahood's answers are very disappointing.

Anything in particular, KJP?  I was trying to listen in from work, but our internet connection is pitifully slow and I would pick up about 2 seconds then buffer for a minute.

I only caught the end of his interview, but he didn't sound prepared at all. Kept stumbling over himself when talking about how the price of gasoline could potentially affect ridership.

I listened as well.  Sec. LaHood handled things pretty well.... especially a caller who spouted the usual drivel  :roll: about "no one rides Amtrak" and that passenger rail is a waste of $$$. 

 

Lahood responded with the facts.... that Amtrak has seen a decade-long trend of significant ridership increases and is on track to set a new record this year.

 

My only wish is that the segment was a bit longer.... there were only two phone calls taken...one anti and one pro 3C... and no e-mailed questions used.

 

WOSU podcasts just about everything they air and that info should be on their website.  I'll see if I can find it and post it.

 

Why would LaHood use the Northeast Corridor as a comparison for 3C? It's not. Use North Carolina, Maine, Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia or even some of the longer regional rail services like New Mexico's or Utah's as a comparison? Ohio doesn't have the population density of the Northeast states, but it beats just about every other non-Northeast state. And, the Northeast Corridor has had 100+ mph train speeds since the 1930s. Use examples from other states where they started out modestly in the past 20-30 years and grew their service into what Ohio wants theirs to become.

 

And as for the caller claiming no one rides trains and the freight railroads don't want it -- that's an example of an Ohioan living on an island and having no idea what's going on elsewhere in the U.S.

 

If I was in LaHood's shoes, I would have asked the caller why is passenger rail ridership at the highest level since construction got underway on the Interstate Highway System? Or why is freight railroad giant Norfolk Southern or mid-size freight railroad Kansas City Southern offering to be an operator of passenger rail services? Or UP allowing 110 mph passenger trains on their tracks in Illinois? Or BNSF going out of its way to sidetrack its own freights to run passenger trains on-time?

 

Such pertinent questions to ask the opposition. But we in Ohio are increasingly isolated from the truth.

 

Remember the early 1960s Andy Griffith TV show set in Mayberry RFB? That was North Carolina back then. A backwater, rural state. Today it has booming cities, booming intercity rail service between its cities, and booming light-rail service in its largest city (Charlotte).

 

Someday soon, that whistling song for the Andy Griffith Show well apply to Ohio which seems hell-bent on trading places with North Carolina given our anti-urban, anti-rail bias.

 

KJP....Not that I disagree with you, but it sounded like they caught LaHood on the go, so that could explain why his answers weren't as good as most of us may have wanted to hear.  I'm sure if he was in the studio and with more time, it would have been more relaxed and detailed.

 

That said, I would say his media staff needs to prep hima bit more for these type of shows where he has to call in.

 

I e-mailed a few questions in from home, but no one's e-mails got used.  Which is why I made the point that a segment such as this (which has gotten so much attention, deserves more than just 15 or 20 minutes.  I have also e-mailed the host to let her know that as well.