In a state of 10 million people we can't let one confused and misguided guy who will cause detrimental harm to the state proceed as he wishes. Strickland should transfer the money to Cleveland RTA (the biggest in the State) or to a consortium of counties or cities and have them build 3C. This way, the money won't be ODOT's for Kasich to take away.

 

I like this idea.  Also, Kasich has already been informed that thse funds can't be used for highways... but is there any way they could be granted (before Kasich takes office) to Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland for lightrail and/or streetcars?  $400M could give Cincy and Columbus quite a start and help Cleveland expand their system.  A long shot for sure, and not as good as getting the 3C route, but better than losing the money entirely.

^what I'm saying is build the 3C project as planned, except the project owner would be CLE RTA or some other entity, and not the state of Ohio. 

 

KJP--can this be done? Do you know anyone at ODOT that would support this and move the project over before Kasich comes to power?

Well, I wrote my say and never heard from anyone from his office including the Emperor himself. As someone posted, HOW can one man impose his misguided opinions/ego on a state of 11 million plus? Amazing.

^what I'm saying is build the 3C project as planned, except the project owner would be CLE RTA or some other entity, and not the state of Ohio. 

 

I know.  Just springboarding from that to another idea. 

^what I'm saying is build the 3C project as planned, except the project owner would be CLE RTA or some other entity, and not the state of Ohio.

 

KJP--can this be done? Do you know anyone at ODOT that would support this and move the project over before Kasich comes to power?

 

These and options are being investigated.

^what I'm saying is build the 3C project as planned, except the project owner would be CLE RTA or some other entity, and not the state of Ohio.

 

KJP--can this be done? Do you know anyone at ODOT that would support this and move the project over before Kasich comes to power?

 

These and options are being investigated.

 

If that is possible that would be the greatest smack in Kasichs face

No smack is intended. And if he perceives it that way, then he can and will stop any solution from happening.

No smack is intended. And if he perceives it that way, then he can and will stop any solution from happening.

 

What do you feel are the chances of this project actually happening? Is there still hope?

Until ODOT cancels all contracts with the Federal Railroad Administration, there is always hope.

 

And I've been at this for 26 years, with others in All Aboard Ohio who have been at this since 1973. During that time, we have seen 3C development projects canceled many times. Four true "high-speed" rail initiatives (1977, 1982, 1985, 1992) were killed and four conventional-speed initiatives (1980, 1986, 1996 and 2000) were killed -- all of these had very favorable studies showing people would fill trains in larger numbers than those on just about every other existing state-sponsored routes. All of the 3C projects were to be state-funded initiatives, as other states have done. This latest effort is the first time significant federal funding was offered to Ohio to start 3C train service.

 

So even if this effort fails, there will be another.

 

  Not meaning to sound like a libertarian anarchist or anything, but is there a reason why a private company can't initiate and operate the 3-C line, with or without funding from the feds?

 

  KJP could be chairman of the board.  :wink:

 

 

^ For the same reason private railroads couldn't compete when they all disappeared so many years ago: a private rail industry cannot compete with a subsidized highway network.

 

Why don't you take your question to its logical extension and ask why a private company cannot operate I-71?

^Read my question again. Is there any reason why a private company couldn't operate the 3-C with or without funding from the feds?

 

So, the State of Ohio led by Kasich isn't interested. If someone else could accept $400 million from the feds, could it be done?

 

Just asking.

 

And by the way, a private company COULD operate I-71 if the law allowed it. There are, in fact, a few privatly operated highways in this country.

I guess someone (say Amtrak) could do it with public funding.

 

I'd have to imagine the controlling board would have to jump on board with any solution.

Hey let's take this all the way and have a private consortium own and operate all the Interstates AND railroad passenger service. They could also operate a statewide bus system as well. Any operating costs could be paid for thru tolls, fares, passenger facility charges and TIF financing.  :-D

 

Have DeutcheBahn operate it. They run a first-class operation.  :-D

^Read my question again. Is there any reason why a private company couldn't operate the 3-C with or without funding from the feds?

 

So, the State of Ohio led by Kasich isn't interested. If someone else could accept $400 million from the feds, could it be done?

 

Just asking.

 

And by the way, a private company COULD operate I-71 if the law allowed it. There are, in fact, a few privatly operated highways in this country.

 

Sure.  As long as you can find a private company willing to lose an estimated $17 million a year.  My guess is you won't have much luck.

^Read my question again. Is there any reason why a private company couldn't operate the 3-C with or without funding from the feds?

 

So, the State of Ohio led by Kasich isn't interested. If someone else could accept $400 million from the feds, could it be done?

 

Just asking.

 

And by the way, a private company COULD operate I-71 if the law allowed it. There are, in fact, a few privatly operated highways in this country.

 

Sure.  As long as you can find a private company willing to lose an estimated $17 million a year.  My guess is you won't have much luck.

 

You're not looking at this the right way. The passenger train creates new demand in downtown areas thru those who ride the trains. New development adjacent or as a part of a station willbring new tax revenues which can be captured thru TIF financing, which can cover both capital and operating costs.

Which can't be directed back to a private enterprise.

^-So you are saying that if the State of Ohio isn't interested, then the cities of Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, and Cleveland should get together and find a way to get it running?

 

I wonder if State Law allows it.

You're not looking at this the right way. The passenger train creates new demand in downtown areas thru those who ride the trains. New development adjacent or as a part of a station willbring new tax revenues which can be captured thru TIF financing, which can cover both capital and operating costs.

 

Which can't be directed back to a private enterprise.

Are you saying that by making a technological improvement that makes downtown Dayton 30 minutes from both downtown Cincinnati and Columbus instead of the previous hour, that the value thus created doesn't redound to say, private property owners in downtown Dayton?

 

BuckeyeB has an understanding of how growth economics works.  He's worth listening to.  It's not terribly complicated.

^Read my question again. Is there any reason why a private company couldn't operate the 3-C with or without funding from the feds?

 

So, the State of Ohio led by Kasich isn't interested. If someone else could accept $400 million from the feds, could it be done?

 

Just asking.

 

And by the way, a private company COULD operate I-71 if the law allowed it. There are, in fact, a few privatly operated highways in this country.

 

Sure. As long as you can find a private company willing to lose an estimated $17 million a year. My guess is you won't have much luck.

 

You're not looking at this the right way. The passenger train creates new demand in downtown areas thru those who ride the trains. New development adjacent or as a part of a station willbring new tax revenues which can be captured thru TIF financing, which can cover both capital and operating costs.

 

Yes, but $17 million per year's worth, and that assuming that these TIFs can be persuaded to commit to paying off the top to subsidizing the operating costs of the rail line?  That's a stretch.  The collective action problems would be all but insurmountable, especially in economically trying times: each government would claim that one of the other C's wasn't paying its fair share.  Likewise, devoting those monies to subsidizing 3C operating costs would take those resources away from the real primary purpose of TIFs, which is to fund local-scale improvements in the small area of a municipality the TIF district encompasses.  It would very likely take away funds that would at least lay the groundwork for last-mile transportation from the 3C stops (which, really, I think should be in place before 3C itself, which is one reason I was always a little leery of the project--I'm more comfortable when development proceeds from the local scale to the regional scale than the reverse).

Are you saying that by making a technological improvement that makes downtown Dayton 30 minutes from both downtown Cincinnati and Columbus instead of the previous hour, that the value thus created doesn't redound to say, private property owners in downtown Dayton?

 

The point is that the train company can't capture any of that value.  So even if it created billions of dollars in new development, they'd still be operating at a loss by relying on nothing but fares.  In the past, railroad and transit companies made a lot of money through real estate, where the presence of their rail line increased the value of that land markedly and spurred development.  Many streetcar and railroad suburbs were developed in this way, with the transit service used as a loss leader for the real estate deals.  Once the land was sold off, or the company forced to divest itself of "unrelated businesses" (such as happened with the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 which required electric utilities and electric railways to split up), then they couldn't operate those services as loss leaders anymore, they were just losses, so they got cut and now most of the previously serviced areas have depressed values. 

 

Now we have a situation where nobody in the private sector wants to build these systems since they can't generate profit on their own, and they can't capture some of the value of the increased development.  The public sector doesn't want to invest in these projects either, because of NIMBY opposition to development and public resistance to the subsidy, despite the increased value and thus tax revenue the development brings.  The added value just sort of disappears into the vastness of the government bureaucracy so nobody can really see and measure it, to prove the relationship with the transit service.

If there is one thing Kasich has said on this issue that I agree with, it's that if a private line would be profitable, absent subsidy, then the private market would have built one.  I just believe that rail done right should not operate at a profit.  Any and all surpluses should go towards enhancing the service, which can be accomplished in a number of ways.  It's an infrastructure, not a business. 

 

^- Excellent post jjakucyk.

 

 

I would love to ask your Governor-elect where he thinks all of the money to build, maintain and operate every single airport in this country (that I can think of) comes from.  The privately-held airlines wouldn't be able to build and maintain that kind of infrastructure without the bonding authority that governmental authorities have.  If airports in and of themselves were expected to make money we'd still be flying in planes which landed on grass strips next to an old barn.

 

Most airport terminals are built with at least a large portion of public money with the tenant airlines picking up some of the tab but the runways are, from my understanding, built with FEDERAL GRANT MONEY.  Once built, the authority which runs the airport has to (gasp!) MAINTAIN THEM! 

 

If this is a satisfactory model for doing things with Airports why isn't it fine for passenger trains, Mr Kasich?

 

Airports and freeways are built for the greater good of the state or region which they serve in order to enable mobility and commerce.  They are not resonably expected to turn a profit.  Why are passenger trains not included in the equation?

 

I understand that gate fees, etc pay for a lot of the day-to-day operational costs of running an airport but in the interest of brevity and staying on topic I chose not to get into the finer points.  We must not anger the moderator gods!

Take a look at super-turnkey rail/transit operations where a public agency that sponsored the planning for the project procures a sum of public funding in the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars. A request for proposals is made, and bids from private consortiums are received. Each of the consortiums include all of the following: transportation construction contractors, transportation operating companies, real estate developers and others. The winning consortium gets paid a lump sum of money and is awarded the development rights to all of the land owned by the public agency around proposed station stops. The revenue from the value capture end of the project (real estate sales, local assessments, etc.) pays for the ongoing operating and maintenance costs of the transportation system. A BRT in Portland and a diesel-powered light rail line in New Jersey were developed in this manner.

 

So can 3C. In fact, one station-area development around a single 3C station has the potential to pay the entire operating costs of the initial 3C service (which will probably be closer to $12 million if other state-sponsored service are any guide). Additional development at more cities/stations can be used to expand and improve the train service in later phases. Don't forget also the revenues from station site leases (retailers, car-sharing, WiFi, advertising), on-board train services (food/beverage service, WiFi, visitors bureau kiosks, etc), plus sponsorships and other revenue sources.

You're not looking at this the right way. The passenger train creates new demand in downtown areas thru those who ride the trains. New development adjacent or as a part of a station willbring new tax revenues which can be captured thru TIF financing, which can cover both capital and operating costs.

 

Which can't be directed back to a private enterprise.

Are you saying that by making a technological improvement that makes downtown Dayton 30 minutes from both downtown Cincinnati and Columbus instead of the previous hour, that the value thus created doesn't redound to say, private property owners in downtown Dayton?

 

BuckeyeB has an understanding of how growth economics works.  He's worth listening to.  It's not terribly complicated.

 

Instead of creating wise-ass remarks, you should compose your words in a more constructive and thoughtful manner.

 

While you and others may be crying over the potential loss of the 3C corridor, throwing out bad ideas is only making the situation more comical because the vast majority of them are just unrealistic or impossible.

 

TIF is one method to use potential gains in tax revenue to finance current improvements. A train station and any off-shoot (restaurants, shops, etc.) could be considered an improvement, and arguably, tax revenue would increase as a result if it replaces something whose tax base is considerably less (parking lots). These increasing tax revenues are therefore called tax increments. TIFs can be used only within a very defined district to finance debt that would be used to construct public infrastructure, purchase land, and so forth. It cannot be used for private enterprise gain -- which is what the poster above suggested.

 

I'm not in favor of using TIF baloney to finance the 3C. While I am interested in seeing what private enterprises can come up with to get the 3C going, I am more in support of a publicly supported private outfit running 3C, not Amtrak. The only positives that I can see with a totally private enterprise is the removal of the political overhead that often comes attached with public rail.

...I am more in support of a publicly supported private outfit running 3C, not Amtrak. The only positives that I can see with a totally private enterprise is the removal of the political overhead that often comes attached with public rail.

 

My only problem with this idea is the danger of ending up with a closed system.  Some view 3C as a way to get from Cincinnati to Cleveland (or vice versa, and to all points in between), but I see it as a jumping off point.  For example, it seems like with Amtrak, you could buy a ticket from Cincy to New York (through Cleveland) and then just hop on board.  The trip would take a while, but it beats the hell out of driving that distance, and with flight demand and weather delays/cancellations around this time of year, it could be an attractive option.  Do you think the same would be possible with a privately operated 3C?  (The obvious answer is just to buy one ticket from Cincy to Cleveland and another from Cleveland to New York, but this complicates things.)

Featured Story

All Aboard in Cincinnati?

By: Jonathan DeHart, 11/30/2010

 

More than fifty years since Americans were first given the freedom to zip from state to state on the Interstate Highway System, an equally ambitious project is in the works. From California and Florida to New York and Illinois, key states throughout the US are getting on board a nationwide plan to build a network of high speed railway lines that could help put some of the nation's most critical challenges on a better track.

 

In February 2009, Congress designated $8 billion for states to launch intercity rail projects, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This massive infrastructure effort, projected to take 25 years, is poised to revitalize the economy, create jobs, provide an alternative form of transport and preempt the crisis lurking in our dwindling oil reserves, all in one go.

 

Yet, despite all talk of "Yes, we can," some politicians, including Ohio governor-elect John Kasich, who has proclaimed that "the train is dead," are taking an avid stance against this project. And unless something changes fast, Ohio, and Cincinnati, could be left behind.

 

Full Blog post at: http://www.soapboxmedia.com/Print.aspx?FileID=29d3c908-df87-4259-a9bd-0495370591a0

My question is, in European and Asian nations where high speed rail travel is more prevalent, do they operate a similar system or did they begin in a similar way. For instance, did they start with a single entity such as our Amtrak or are their rail lines privately owned much like airlines are?

 

I can see Sherman's point about the privately funded 3C, but in an environment where everything else is Amtrak it seems like a lose-lose situation. We'd get 3C, but how well would the company coordinate with Amtrak. Sherman is there anything like your proposing currently in operation in the US?

^^^ I would think there could be a partnership between OHTransit (or whatever) and Amtrak, to allow splitting the proceeds of such tickets.

 

^ Good point, bringing up Europe. Each country, so far as I know, has its own rail company. Still, you can get direct trains between cities, passing through different countries. I believe the crew just switches when a border is crossed, and there is some system for sharing trains.

My question is, in European and Asian nations where high speed rail travel is more prevalent, do they operate a similar system or did they begin in a similar way. For instance, did they start with a single entity such as our Amtrak or are their rail lines privately owned much like airlines are?

 

Almost all of the high-speed rail services are either operated by state-run companies or were started as such and were since sold off to private enterprised (ie: Japan and UK).

 

I can see Sherman's point about the privately funded 3C, but in an environment where everything else is Amtrak it seems like a lose-lose situation. We'd get 3C, but how well would the company coordinate with Amtrak. Sherman is there anything like your proposing currently in operation in the US?

 

A private consortium can certainly include Amtrak as a partner. This is what is happening in Florida. And in the case of the New Jersey diesel-powered light-rail line, a public entity (New Jersey Transit) contract with Bombardier Corp. to operate the frequent service on this 30+ mile route.

If there is one thing Kasich has said on this issue that I agree with, it's that if a private line would be profitable, absent subsidy, then the private market would have built one.  I just believe that rail done right should not operate at a profit. 

 

Did you mean that "rail done right SHOULD operate at a profit?"  Others more knowledgeable about railroads have commented that they are not aware of any rail lines in the world that operate at a profit.  Are you aware of any?  Or do you have a new idea about how to make that to happen?

 

It seems to me that we have two issues, (1) building the rail line and (2) operating the trains.  As has been pointed out on this board before, the government makes it possible to build highways and airports, and also subsidizes their maintenance.  So I see no reason why federal funds shouldn't be used to build rail lines (1) and subsidize maintaining the rail line to the same extent that they do for competing transport modes.  Could a private company make money only operating the trains?  Airlines and bus companies both seem to struggle to make profits.  And I'm pretty sure I operate my personal car at a loss.

 

I throw it out to the Board -- has private train operation been profitable anywhere else?  I know Virgin runs some of the rail lines in England, but I don't know how far their responsibility extends -- did they purchase the rail cars?  Do they maintain the rails?  Are they required to provide service at a particular level?  Are they subsidized by the government?

 

If the issue is, "how do we pay for the operating expenses" of a 3C line, then let's explore those options.  Meanwhile, let's invest in the infrastructure improvements to make it possible in the first place.  If we cannot afford to run the train, at least we will have improved freight transit through our state.  Turning away the funding means our tax dollars going to NY, VA, NC, IL, or CA.  In the face of all of these states lining up to take our tax dollars, everyone in Ohio should be in favor of using the $400M in Ohio.

Read the rest of my post.  It was not a typo.  As I said, if there is a revenue surplus (big "if"), that money should go towards improving the service, not padding the trust funds of some CEO's children.

Thanks for the quick answers to the questions everyone!

And for all you Buckeyes on this thread.... yes, Michigan is making a play for Ohio & Wisconsin's rejected rail dollars...

 

Guest column: Michigan lawmakers must act to secure $161 million for fast passenger rail service

Published: Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 5:50 AM    Updated: Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 7:08 AM

Guest writer

 

Grand Rapids is on the verge of a passenger rail renaissance that promises to accelerate economic development, boost tourism, help the environment and better connect Grand Rapidians with the rest of the state and the nation.

 

In order to make that happen, state senators must approve legislation securing $161 million in federal rail funds to start building the fast passenger rail service we’ve talked about for so long.

 

Legislation currently before the state Senate -- HB 6484 -- would fund Michigan’s required state match for the federal high speed rail funding. If the state Senate fails to pass this bill Michigan will allow $161 million to slip away. That would hinder the possibility of high speed connections on the Chicago-Detroit corridor and miss the opportunity to strengthen passenger rail travel to Grand Rapids.

 

Full story at: http://www.mlive.com/opinion/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/11/guest_column_michigan_lawmaker.html

"I put it in there for the president."

 

I remember a sort of cringe when I heard Rahm Emanuel say that -- the $8 billion that he inserted into the stimulus bill, almost as a sort of after-thought. At least that's the way it came off to me when I saw the video.

 

But read the article. The R's initially made no complaints about what Emanuel calls Obama's "signature issue." I wonder how much the combination of Emanuel's flippancy - at least that's the way I recall it coming off - on an issue of importance to the president, I wonder if that's what made high-speed rail suddenly so toxic, something they all almost simultaneously decided to be against.

 

Article follows:

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18924.html

It wasn't the "flippancy".... it was the "signature issue" comment that made it so toxic to anyone who hopes to survive in the present day GOP.

Senator Voinovich has introduced legislation into Congress that would allow 3C funds to go to non-passenger rail projects.

 

So, if we should not subsidize transportation, when is he going to submit legislation requiring that roads, highways and their related support systems (drainage, driveway aprons, emergency services) cannot be paid for by any other means except from revenues generated by users?

 

Now THAT would be a worthwhile ballot initiative.

If there was ever evidence that some in Ohio's GOP are firmly in the pocket of the highway interests, today's events demonstrate it...

 

1. A Governor-elect who calls passenger rail advocates "a train cult".

2. He appoints as his new ODOT Director the one who served under (then) Governor Voinovich and then went to work as the chief lobbyist for the Ohio Flexible Pavements Association (the asphalt industry)

3. Voinovich introduces a bill to re-purpose the $400-million in 3C money so it can be spent on MORE roads and bridges.

 

These putz's aren't satisfied with stopping the 3C.  They want to bury passenger rail in Ohio for decades.

 

The question is.... who will stand up to these bullies and how will you make your stand?

 

 

George Voinovich tries high-speed lawmaking to help John Kasich in high-speed rail dispute

 

Published: Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 6:19 PM    Updated: Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 11:45 PM

Stephen Koff, The Plain Dealer

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Barack Obama's administration won't let Ohio's incoming governor use $400 million in stimulus money to fix roads and bridges instead of building a Cleveland-to-Cincinnati railroad, so Ohio's outgoing U.S. senator announced a new approach Tuesday.

 

He's pushing Congress to bypass federal authorities and grant Ohio special authority to divert the money.

 

Full story at: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/11/george_voinovich_trying_high-s.html

 

An electrification upgrade would allow the trains to be run by Voino's beloved nuclear energy.

 

Voino is guilty of cheap politics.  This bill won't pass before he is gone, but it gives the Republicans more insane fodder for the Glen Beck "types".

These putz's aren't satisfied with stopping the 3C. They want to bury passenger rail in Ohio for decades.

 

The question is.... who will stand up to these bullies and how will you make your stand?

 

Don't disagree, though I think your comments about bullies is the governing one.  It's not so much about 3C for them as it is that they are in charge and they get to do what they want... and they want to kill this project but use the money how they see fit.

 

It's comical really.  Spending is wasteful... except on the things we want to spend money on.  It's a complete joke.

 

I honestly fear the Republicans will end up being in power for a while, so I think the only way this gets done is, as has been mentioned in this thread previously, some coalition of the 3C + D cities, and maybe other counties along the route.  Some legal entity needs to be able to receive the federal money without interference from the state, and it needs to be driving its authority from political entities run by Dems so that it doesn't get canceled or sidelined on a regular basis.

And according to the article, Voinovich was for 3C before he "studied" the proposal more thoroughly....uh yeah...

Is this Voinovich trying to stop the 3C, or is this Voinovich thinking that the 3C has no chance under Kasich and trying to get Ohio some money any way possible?

^I think this is about Voinovich truly believing that Kasich is as crazy as he says he is and will send the money back if he can't redirect it... so I think (hope) that Voinovich is just trying to keep the money in Ohio.

^I think this is about Voinovich truly believing that Kasich is as crazy as he says he is and will send the money back if he can't redirect it... so I think (hope) that Voinovich is just trying to keep the money in Ohio.

 

From a pragmatic point of view, I can appreciate that ... but as a matter of politics, that will give Kasich a powerful win, a win that will primarily benefit the highway-construction industry.  It will be positive reinforcement for the style of politics that Kasich has engaged in with respect to 3C, which I find deplorable even as someone who is lukewarm on the 3C concept in 2010.

I agree that Voinovich's motives are probably better than most would assume.  But he has to know that this has absolutely ZERO chance and would be bad policy even if it did have a chance.  The minute Congress passes any such legislation, 49 other states would approach with their hand out for an extra $400 million from the Feds to fix their roads and bridges, including those states that already have been awarded passenger rail funds.

County wants 3C rail reconsidered

By Joanne Huist Smith, Staff Writer

11:54 PM Tuesday, November 30, 2010

 

DAYTON — The Montgomery County Commission wants Ohio Gov.-elect John Kasich to reconsider his plan to scrap a proposed passenger rail line linking Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland and Dayton.

 

Commission President Dan Foley said the trains became a hot issue during the gubernatorial campaign, but really are not a political issue.

 

Full story at: http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/county-wants-3c-rail-reconsidered-1017451.html

Kasich should reverse course on plans for high-speed rail.

Letter to the Editor

Posted Nov 30, 2010 @ 12:00 PM

   

The recent announcement by Gov.-elect John Kasich to stop the 3C passenger rail project was disappointing and, I believe, very shortsighted.

 

As the Sierra Club has pointed out, never before has the federal government offered to underwrite 100 percent of capital costs for such a project.

 

If we turn it down, the money will go to other states that are already asking for the funds; we will not be able to use it for other purposes such as roads and bridges.

 

Full letter at: http://www.cantonrep.com/opinion/letters/x1966824542/Kasich-should-reverse-course-on-plans-for-high-speed-rail

I agree that Voinovich's motives are probably better than most would assume.  But he has to know that this has absolutely ZERO chance and would be bad policy even if it did have a chance.  The minute Congress passes any such legislation, 49 other states would approach with their hand out for an extra $400 million from the Feds to fix their roads and bridges, including those states that already have been awarded passenger rail funds.

 

This is typical Voinovich: Taking a stand to make a point and not really accomplishing anything. He's notorious for hand-wringing, making statements, sounding moderate and reasonable, then voting with the crazies. Here, he's giving a nod to his party and his state, then pushing something he knows won't -- and shouldn't -- pass.