News release from the Environmental Law & Policy Center

 

Obama Takes Rail Funding from Ohio and Wisconsin

12/9/10

 

Today U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced that $1.2 billion in high-speed rail funds will be redirected from Wisconsin and Ohio to twelve other states. These federal funds were originally designated to develop rail in Wisconsin and Ohio as part of a competitive grant process.  These rail projects were originated by Republican governors Thompson and Taft, respectively, and have had bipartisan support for more than a decade.

 

“It’s a sad day when new governors in Ohio and Wisconsin allow ideology triumph over job growth, economic development and better mobility in their states,” said Howard Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center.  “Today, the Midwest region is losing $1.2 billion of federal rail support, but other Midwestern states are getting ready to step up for the next round of high-speed rail funding.”Learner observed that the fact that US DOT was able to quickly re-allocate these funds to twelve other states shows just how much wide-spread support there is to build the 21st century transportation system for America.

 

“ELPC will work hard for these Midwest high-speed rail projects to receive funding in the next round and bring jobs, economic growth and better transportation for people in the region.”

 

Not dead yet

Backers of 3C rail insist the project is only sleeping

BY LYNDSEY TETER

Published: Thursday, December 16, 2010 9:13 AM EST

 

When Gov.-elect John Kasich referred to high-speed rail advocates as a “train cult,” we can only assume he was complimenting them on their passion and fervor—characteristics they continue to uphold today.

 

Plans for Ohio’s 3C Corridor high-speed passenger rail service suffered what looked like a very public execution last week when U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced that most of the $400 million in rail development funds secured by Gov. Ted Strickland’s administration would be yanked and redirected to states whose governors actually plan to use the money.

 

Kasich, who has an affinity for making Biblical references, might be impressed with the resurrection powers of passenger rail advocates, who, it turns out, have a long history of telling folks that what is perceived as dead is really just sleeping.

 

Read more at: http://www.theotherpaper.com/articles/2010/12/16/front/doc4d0a1e1c0037e733495997.txt

Write to your councilperson. Urge them to speak to Councilman Cummins and Mayor Jackson's Chief of Staff Ken Silliman about a letter to the USDOT and FRA.

 

I wrote Cimperman and Jackson yesterday.

Hub from past all set for future

Filed by Kaitlin Bushinski

December 17th, 2010

 

ELYRIA — The rumble of trains passing behind the old New York Central Railroad Station in Elyria was nearly drowned out by the din of the crowd gathered to celebrate its transformation into the Lorain County Transportation Center.

 

The refurbishment, which took 10 years and $7 million, was mostly funded by the federal government. The only money spent by the county was the initial $1.5 million to purchase the property in 2000.

 

County Commissioner Betty Blair, a strong advocate for the historic building’s restoration, said the structure, located at 40 East Ave., was built in 1925 in the grand neoclassical style and is on the National Register of Historic Places.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2010/12/17/hub-from-past-all-set-for-future/

Meanwhile, in order to conform to federal ADA law requirements before a deadline, Amtrak continues to make ADA improvements to its existing depot on East Bridge Street, just east of downtown. This photo was taken this past week by All Aboard Ohio member Dan Davidson...

 

Thanks! Is K-Sick the "Train Nazi"? The person who made/sent me this apparently thinks so!

 

It's a little late now, but a few weeks back when the Charlotte Observer in North Carolina published an Op-Ed saying their state would welcome our 3C money, I immediately sent in the following letter.  I sent it to the Dispatch too, but neither paper printed it:

 

I do not blame North Carolina for wanting a shot at Ohio's $400 million federal grant for development of its Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati (3C) rail corridor.

 

The 3C Corridor project is part of the Ohio Hub Plan which would connect all of Ohio's major cities with each other and surrounding states with seven rail corridors.  The Ohio Hub Plan was nearly a decade in the making.  It was developed with bipartisan support because Ohio saw the success that states like North Carolina were having developing their own rail corridors, and we realized that we are competing with those states for jobs, residents, and economic development opportunities.

 

What's frustrating is that bipartisanship evaporated when the 2010 election season rolled around.  I could name name several legislators, for example, who voted in favor of advancing the Ohio Hub plan just a few years ago, then suddenly turned against what was always intended to be the first step of that plan, the 3C Corridor project, once the election season started.

 

Governor-elect John Kasich's opposition is different, however.  He opposes it for purely ideological reasons, and I'm told he steadfastly refuses to listen to any facts, reason, or arguments to the contrary.  Furthermore, he arrogantly demands that he be allowed to use the money for highway development.

 

Ohio needs jobs and economic development badly, and this project would have provided a host of economic benefits that, when all totaled, would exceed the costs.  The US Department of Commerce estimated 8,000 indirect and spinoff jobs from the project.  We have 225 companies employing 26,000 people that supply products and services to the rail industry that would benefit.  The project would even reduce annual highway damage by more than the operating subsidy because of the freight that would be diverted from roads to rails.

 

With the 3C as the most densely populated travel corridor in the nation without passenger rail service, Ohio deserves the money it was awarded.  Unfortunately, we are allowing politics to kill this project as governor-elect Kasich stubbornly and blindly grips his ideology.

 

I applaud the foresight North Carolina had when it began diversifying its transportation system with passenger trains two decades ago.  I applaud the bipartisanship you have maintained with passenger rail development.  When you go after the money after John Kasich gets his way, I wish you the best of luck in competing for the funds.  Our shortsightedness is your gain.  Go Tar Heels.

 

Great letter... except the evaporation of bipartisanship occured after the 2008 election, not 2010.

More drivel from the Dispatch...a boot in the butt for Gov. Strickland on his way out the door. :x

 

Editorial: Short takes

 

Saturday, December 18, 2010  02:53 AM

 

 

The Columbus Dispatch

 

OHIO'S TRAIN money is being rerouted to California, Florida and 12 other states, a matter that greatly pains U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and outgoing Gov. Ted Strickland.

 

"Today is one of the saddest days during my four years as governor," Strickland said.

 

Really? One would have thought that contriving a budget that wimped out on necessary cuts, driving the state into an $8 billion hole next year, might have elicited greater remorse.

 

Gov.-elect John Kasich must now deal with that deficit and wisely has decided - with the backing of Ohio voters who certainly knew he would kill the train - not to throw good money after bad...

 

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/12/18/short-takes.html?sid=101

Are your really calling that little white shack a "depot"?  And the people in Cleveland who complain about their "Amshack" should come see Elyria's.  The only way they could have less of a facility would be if they reconditioned a Fotomat.

Clevelanders didn't have to come to Elyria to see it. That "Depot" used to be Cleveland's temporary station from 1975-78.

^What a bunch of jerks at the Dispatch.  They lied about Strickland and the budget.  He cut a LOT and he didn't create the hole.  And what about the Republican Senate that didn't cooperate during the last budget process?  They're blameless? They also forget, that 51% of those who voted, voted against Kasich.  A majority didn't want him in office.  They even had to resort to lying about the 3C Corridor.  The train never was going to go 39 mph.  The Dispatch knows this, but they prefer to lie. 

 

 

Why would anyone buy this newspaper? 

^What a bunch of jerks at the Dispatch. They lied about Strickland and the budget. He cut a LOT and he didn't create the hole. And what about the Republican Senate that didn't cooperate during the last budget process? They're blameless? They also forget, that 51% of those who voted, voted against Kasich. A majority didn't want him in office.   They even had to resort to lying about the 3C Corridor. The train never was going to go 39 mph. The Dispatch knows this, but they prefer to lie.

 

 

Why would anyone buy this newspaper?

 

I think we need an alternative to the so-called "mainstream media" that is not mainstream at all but conservative and willing to lie to have things their way.

 

I also think we need to look at ways to create an alternative to conservative dominated state government. Urban areas keep getting shafted by a state government that does not care about their issues, since people in these areas vote Democratic.

Agreed! We need to seek out the alternatives and take them seriously. The net, the library...many sources where what is probably more the truth can be found. We will not get it on the mainstream media boob tube today. These sources are not loyal to you and me.

 

They are loyal to their sponsorship interests and in selling no matter the cost. Dedication to seeking out facts is another thing. "Fair and balanced" does not mean factual and accurate...and as someone once said, the press is free as long as you have the money to buy it...and the media is only as "liberal" as the conservative interests that own it.

 

The lack of media and facts disseminated to the public is a huge reason why the vast majority of the American public is so delusional, oblivious and misled.  They cannot make informed decisions when you have people altering the facts to fit their opinions, rather than altering their opinions to fit the facts. But still, no one is going to offer us up the real and valid information we need on anything these days. We've got to seek it out and not wait for someone to do it for us.

Sec. of Transp. Ray LaHood was interviewed about Ohio's rejection of the federal funds last week on NPR.  I loved that in defending the project his argument basically boiled down to, "if you build it, they will come."  To wit, he argued that there hasn't been a single rail project in this country that wasn't heavily used after it was built.  He obviously hasn't heard of RTA's Waterfront line. 

 

While it's a shame to lose the federal money, I still believe that the whole "high-speed" rail initiative in this country is utterly misguided.  To start, these projects involve incorporating passenger rail onto existing freight lines.  What a huge mistake.  The U.S. arguably has the most efficient and functional freight rail system in the world.  Incorporating passenger rail onto freight lines can only lead to a degradation in that efficiency.  Moreover, because the passenger trains would utilize freight lines, they can never truly be "high-speed" like the passenger lines in Europe or Japan. 

 

Also, so many of the proposed routes just don't make sense.  I can't fathom that tons of folks would be opting to pay to take the train from say, Orlando to Tampa.  That's a short enough car ride that undoubtedly would be cheaper to drive.  Same thing goes for the proposed 3-C line.  I highly doubt it would ever have the ridership necessary to make it a profitable enterprise.  Indeed, Amtrak's most heavily used East coast line has rarely, if ever, turned a profit.  Rather, it relies substantially on federal subsidies.

 

At the end of the day, the $8 billion allotted for high speed rail projects would have been so much more impactful if it were spent on expanding and upgrading regional transit initiatives.  You would get far more bang for the buck, along with far greater environmental sustainability.

I don't see many folks opting to take I-71 in the future when it is even more packed to the hilt that it is now, fuel prices escalate....all the way down south and back. We simply cannot keep going in this auto-dependent direction. That's the inconvenient truth.

Except that Interstate 71 is not "packed to the hilt" from Cleveland to Columbus. I do the drive frequently -- and many other interstates, and the only congestion I encounter is when there is an accident, or I'm in rush-hour and I was stupid enough to go through the city instead of the bypasses. Yeah, for commuting, it can be terrible, but rural interstates are clear and in a good level-of-service.

 

I agree with heightsfan's commentary -- in that the HSR proposal for Ohio (labeled by some in the newspaper industry, and by our incoming governor) wasn't HSR. It was just passenger rail operated on existing freight lines, and while I think that we need that kind of service, it should not be labeled or even lumped into the HSR category.

 

The passenger rail proposal that was just tossed was a good proposal, and a start. It wasn't that long ago that we had passenger services that peacefully existed with heavy freight corridors and worked just fine.

I'm sure others will jump on this... but if profit without subsidy were a requirement, there would be no transportation at all.  Every mode receives subsidy and relies on it. 

 

However, I agree with heightsfan that some routes make more sense than others for HSR.  I also agree that local and regional transit may be a better investment at this time, due to the fact that Ohio's so far behind in that area.  Improving our local and regional mass transit would increase the efficacy of intercity rail here, high speed or otherwise.  But I'm guessing Kasich has no interest in any sort of mass transit, so that gives us 4 years to plan things out.

 

And when it comes to intercity rail, I still believe we should skip the freight-rail-sharing aspect as much as possible, and instead focus our resources on building dedicated HSR track. 

While it's a shame to lose the federal money, I still believe that the whole "high-speed" rail initiative in this country is utterly misguided.  To start, these projects involve incorporating passenger rail onto existing freight lines.  What a huge mistake.  The U.S. arguably has the most efficient and functional freight rail system in the world.  Incorporating passenger rail onto freight lines can only lead to a degradation in that efficiency.  Moreover, because the passenger trains would utilize freight lines, they can never truly be "high-speed" like the passenger lines in Europe or Japan.

 

On this point, you may have a point.  Some others have noted that freight trains travel at different speeds and that synchronizing the schedules could be problematic at times.  That said, it's very likely a solvable problem.  Notwithstanding the growth in freight rail over the past few years, Ohio's railways aren't that crowded.

 

Also, so many of the proposed routes just don't make sense.  I can't fathom that tons of folks would be opting to pay to take the train from say, Orlando to Tampa.  That's a short enough car ride that undoubtedly would be cheaper to drive.  Same thing goes for the proposed 3-C line.  I highly doubt it would ever have the ridership necessary to make it a profitable enterprise.  Indeed, Amtrak's most heavily used East coast line has rarely, if ever, turned a profit.  Rather, it relies substantially on federal subsidies.

 

On this point, you have no ground to stand on because you're using an unfair standard.  I-71 does not turn a profit either; the interstate highway system relies almost entirely on federal subsidies, both from the general revenue fund and from the dedicated stream of income from the federal gas tax.  In fact, the passenger rail system would find it almost impossible to hemorrhage cash as quickly as the highway system does--not just with expansion projects but with ongoing maintenance.  Metal and wood survive Ohio winters much more ably than asphalt does.  If there really were a low-maintenance, durable road surfacing material out there, you might have a point, but there's isn't.

 

As for whether it's cheaper to drive: The dominant determinant of how cheap driving is is how many people are in the car.  You buy your car by the vehicle but your train tickets by the seat.  A train ride from Cleveland to Columbus for one likely would be cheaper than driving when you factor in the other costs besides gas.  A train ride from Cleveland to Columbus for five would probably make little economic sense (though there are families that would do it just for the experience, since it seems that there are a ton of young boys in this country who think trains are cool).

 

At the end of the day, the $8 billion allotted for high speed rail projects would have been so much more impactful if it were spent on expanding and upgrading regional transit initiatives.  You would get far more bang for the buck, along with far greater environmental sustainability.

 

I've expressed the same thought myself; I'd rather see last-mile transportation put in place first, while reserving some space for later intercity transit hubs.  Trying to rely on buses and cabs when you get to your destination can be confusing if you're in an unfamiliar city, and my experience with city buses has been heavily negative.  That said, that concern does not trump the fact that Governor-Elect Kasich just rejected $385 million in cash, and would have rejected $400m had he been able.  Our tax dollars will now go entirely towards funding other states rather than at least some of them returning to Ohio.

While it's a shame to lose the federal money, I still believe that the whole "high-speed" rail initiative in this country is utterly misguided.  To start, these projects involve incorporating passenger rail onto existing freight lines.  What a huge mistake.  The U.S. arguably has the most efficient and functional freight rail system in the world.  Incorporating passenger rail onto freight lines can only lead to a degradation in that efficiency.  Moreover, because the passenger trains would utilize freight lines, they can never truly be "high-speed" like the passenger lines in Europe or Japan.

 

On this point, you may have a point.  Some others have noted that freight trains travel at different speeds and that synchronizing the schedules could be problematic at times.  That said, it's very likely a solvable problem.  Notwithstanding the growth in freight rail over the past few years, Ohio's railways aren't that crowded.

 

Also, many of the rail corridors we have now are single-track that used to be double-track.  It is immensely easier to restore that second track than it is to create a completely new corridor.

 

At the end of the day, the $8 billion allotted for high speed rail projects would have been so much more impactful if it were spent on expanding and upgrading regional transit initiatives.  You would get far more bang for the buck, along with far greater environmental sustainability.

 

I've expressed the same thought myself; I'd rather see last-mile transportation put in place first, while reserving some space for later intercity transit hubs.  Trying to rely on buses and cabs when you get to your destination can be confusing if you're in an unfamiliar city, and my experience with city buses has been heavily negative.

 

It is a concern yes, but those who fly have managed to get to their airport and to get around their destination cities just fine.  A downtown train station, even in the absence of any meaningful transit, is still likely to be a much shorter cab ride to your destination than the airport outside the beltway. 

"I don't see many folks opting to take I-71 in the future when it is even more packed to the hilt that it is now, fuel prices escalate...."

 

If fuel prices escalate, wouldn't you expect LESS traffic on I-71?

 

"Every mode receives subsidy..."

 

I'm been thinking about this in light of the comparison between North America and Europe.

 

Europe has a higher percentage of their freight shipped by deep sea shipping. Although harbors and navigation has been improved, no government paid anything to put the oceans there, and the oceans have essentially unlimited capacity. As for freight in Europe, the preferred mode is sea first, and then railroad and highway.

 

In the United States, the east coast carries a lot of freight by water, but the interior is mostly isolated. The primary means of shipping freight is by railroad, then by highway, with some percentage shipped on inland waterways.

 

So, without having to build an extensive freight railroad system, Europe can afford to build more passenger railroads. Basicly, their primary freight system is deep sea shipping, and their secondary freight system is railroads, which they share with passenger trains. In the United States, especially in the interior, our primary freight system is railroad, and our secondary freight system is highways, which are shared with passenger cars.

 

This is why Europe can more easily afford passenger rail than we can. Europe can't afford to build a passenger system AND a freight system, and neither can we. But Europe was given a free freight system, and we weren't.

 

Japan has a similar situation to Europe: deep sea freight and an excellent passenger train system.

 

The United States is simply never going to be like Europe. The geography is so different.

 

Just tossing the idea out there. Does that make sense?

 

Freight rail is a strange anomaly in our country's transportation hierarchy in that it's the only one that's mostly privately owned and is not subsidized much. So while many countries in the world laugh at our terrible passenger rail system, they also envy the freight system. In much of Europe for example, while passenger rail services are mostly profitable, though in many cases government owned, freight rail in those countries is highly subsidized, just the opposite of here. Why is that? I'm not exactly sure, but I think part of it is that freight trains need to be shorter and faster in order to not interfere with the passenger trains. This means somewhat higher energy/fuel costs from the faster operation, but also higher personnel costs due to the short length and thus the lower freight per employee ratio.  I also doubt European railroads had the same sort of deregulation that was necessary to get Conrail and other US systems out of the toilet, which they continue to benefit from.  It's probably also related to needing more separate tracks and sidings as well to keep out of the way of passenger trains.

 

I would add that Europe may in fact be more reliant on truck freight than we think.  They don't use as many of the enormous tractor trailers we do, but while international borders are essentially invisible nowadays, the countries are still more independent than our states, so they have shorter supply lines that are easier to serve with trucks.  Also, those international borders aren't so invisible for freight trains as they are for passenger trains, cars, and trucks.  The various national railroad companies in Europe are still national companies, not international companies.  So there's rolling stock and signaling and personnel and control issues that occur when a train crosses into another country.  While these aren't insurmountable barriers, as they've been pretty well sorted out for passenger trains, the priority of a foreign freight train is at the bottom of the list.  They can be left for DAYS on a siding waiting for an opening in the schedule, at the convenience of the local operator. 

 

So while water IS a big part of the picture in Europe, something like 40-50% of freight moves by water I think, their rail system is the exact opposite of ours.  Passenger trains are given top priority with frequent and fast schedules.  That makes the freight trains slow and unreliable, and in many cases not worth the trouble.  That's exactly what happens with our Amtrak trains, and it's really quite a fascinating comparison.  There has to be a good middle ground.  I think the advantage we have is all of the underutilized rail corridors I mentioned before that can be easily expanded without requiring expensive new alignments created from scratch.  I think it's also necessary on both sides of the pond to take a more comprehensive approach to the scheduling situation.  The railroads of old managed mixed traffic by having schedules for both passenger AND freight trains, which were of course completely interdependent.  This seems to be anathema to current freight rail companies, but I think that's probably what's going to have to happen to manage everything properly. 

 

This is why Europe can more easily afford passenger rail than we can. Europe can't afford to build a passenger system AND a freight system, and neither can we. But Europe was given a free freight system, and we weren't.

 

 

Europe IS developing a freight rail system. Their modal shares put water first, then trucks, then rail which gets only 15 percent of the freight market. In America, 40 percent of freight is moved by rail, 25-30 percent by truck, and 25-30 percent by barge and the rest by pipeline. Air moves 1-3 percent.

 

Europe wants less freight moved by truck and more by rail and are spending handsomly to get it. They can and are affording it.

 

This is why Europe can more easily afford passenger rail than we can. Europe can't afford to build a passenger system AND a freight system, and neither can we. But Europe was given a free freight system, and we weren't.

 

 

Europe wants less freight moved by truck and more by rail and are spending handsomly to get it. They can and are affording it.

 

I don't think Europe is affording much of anything these days.  The handsome spending you refer to is precisly what has gotten Europe into the deep trouble it is currently in.  Wouldn't surprise me if freight rail spending gets the ax as part of the austerity measures being implemented.

Not spending for infrastructure - but risky investments and bank privatization (see Iceland)

 

I don't think Europe is affording much of anything these days. The handsome spending you refer to is precisly what has gotten Europe into the deep trouble it is currently in. Wouldn't surprise me if freight rail spending gets the ax as part of the austerity measures being implemented.

 

Au contrare. Europe is cutting public expenditures, but rail is not where the cuts are being made. Unlike America, they recognize the long-term economic payback from such investments. To eliminate them is to eliminate their chances to recover economically.

 

EDIT -- for more details, see:

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/10/20-crossrail-northern-electrification-survive-budget.html

 

And lots more here, in the most recent pages of:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7449.0.html

Except that Interstate 71 is not "packed to the hilt" from Cleveland to Columbus. I do the drive frequently -- and many other interstates, and the only congestion I encounter is when there is an accident, or I'm in rush-hour and I was stupid enough to go through the city instead of the bypasses. Yeah, for commuting, it can be terrible, but rural interstates are clear and in a good level-of-service.

 

Sorry, but I beg to differ, and this is very well a matter of perspective. I don't know how long you have lived in Ohio to witness changes on our highways.... My time being most of 42-plus years...and I have driven that route frequently too...more than most I would say, and indeed, it has often been packed.

 

I am not quite sure what you deem as packed or not, but frequent lines of traffic, especially on what should be mostly a rural ride, looks pretty packed to me. The addition of a third lane in various parts has alleviated some of the congestion, but the congestion was there, thus creating this "need" for another lane (there are so many trucks on this route that a third lane can be used to facilitate just them alone....and take a look at the rest areas late at night, I-76 is a great example aside from I-71... as many look like truck stops with caravans of trucks lined up from beginning of exit at rest stop to end) and with poorly planned growth it is only a matter of time before the third lanes begins to fill as rampant sprawl and developing countrysides become more frequent.

 

I also remember driving with my Father, who was a traveling sales associate, when I-71 and others were no where near the capacity of traffic seen today.

 

 

^ And, yeah, I agree with the KJP statement that a part of our problem here is the lack of long term vision. Short sightedness, on the other hand, is in great abundance. 

 

Rail services designed to address highway problems often keeps rail in a subservient role, and rail won't perform as well as it should. If you design a rail service to succeed on its own merits, then it probably will.

Except that Interstate 71 is not "packed to the hilt" from Cleveland to Columbus. I do the drive frequently -- and many other interstates, and the only congestion I encounter is when there is an accident, or I'm in rush-hour and I was stupid enough to go through the city instead of the bypasses. Yeah, for commuting, it can be terrible, but rural interstates are clear and in a good level-of-service.

 

Sorry, but I beg to differ, and this is very well a matter of perspective. I don't know how long you have lived in Ohio to witness changes on our highways.... My time being most of 42-plus years...and I have driven that route frequently too...more than most I would say, and indeed, it has often been packed.

 

I am not quite sure what you deem as packed or not, but frequent lines of traffic, especially on what should be mostly a rural ride, looks pretty packed to me. The addition of a third lane in various parts has alleviated some of the congestion, but the congestion was there, thus creating this "need" for another lane (there are so many trucks on this route that a third lane can be used to facilitate just them alone....and take a look at the rest areas late at night, I-76 is a great example aside from I-71... as many look like truck stops with caravans of trucks lined up from beginning of exit at rest stop to end) and with poorly planned growth it is only a matter of time before the third lanes begins to fill as rampant sprawl and developing countrysides become more frequent.

 

I also remember driving with my Father, who was a traveling sales associate, when I-71 and others were no where near the capacity of traffic seen today.

 

Your visual interpretation of what is "packed" doesn't correspond to reality. You can't do a visual check and say the highway is congested because you see a line of vehicles. The LOS for most of Interstate 71, sans the highway through the urban cores, is A-B, which is manageable. The LOS (level of service) is based on the density of vehicles, in terms of cars per mile per lane. It is calculated with volume-to-capacity ratios, average travel speeds and maximum service flow rates. The average speed on the rural segments of Interstate 71 exceeds 70 MPH (even though the speed limit is 65 MPH). The 85% percentile for speed is 72 MPH, and the highway is a good candidate for an increased speed limit. I can't remember what the VTC ratio is at the moment, but it is nowhere near capacity (I believe around 55%).

 

LOS A is where traffic flows at or above the speed limit, and motorists have complete mobility between lanes of traffic.

LOS B slightly increases congestion, and some maneuverability is limited. Speed is NOT reduced from LOS A. Most of Interstate 71 is this during the day, and LOS A at night.

LOS C increases congestion, and the ability to change lanes is not always a given in a two minute interval. Speed limits are typically not exceeded. This is typically the minimum threshold for three-lane rural interstate widening. Most of Interstate 71 in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati operate at LOS C, but drastically get worse during rush hour.

I-71 is a known nightmare during heavy travel periods.  Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, big Ohio State football games, etc. overwhelm the highway.  Does that happen often?  Not necessarily, but the interstate is in a fairly precarious condition, and traffic easily gets monstrous with just the slightest problem, especially snow.  It could be fixed temporarily by further widening of the highway, but that's only going to induce more traffic and it doesn't solve the weather problems.  Hence the need for 3-C which is much less expensive than widening the highway. 

Killing the 3C train project was a giant step backward

Letter to the Editor

By Steven Conn

7:34 PM Thursday, December 16, 2010

 

So there I was the other day trying to get to work. A little bit of precipitation and the traffic on I-70 goes haywire. A four-car fender-bender and a jackknifed truck, and I’m stuck in major jam. I miss my first two meetings, arriving at work thoroughly aggravated. I have to play catch-up for the rest of the day.

 

And I ask myself: Why does John Kasich want me stuck in traffic like this?

 

It’s now official. The State of Ohio has forfeited its share of federal stimulus money designated to build a new network of passenger trains. Kasich claims that he dumped the trains because he is so fiscally responsible. He didn’t want to the state to pay its share to run the trains. Now that stimulus money will be split among the other states which are going ahead to build new train systems.

 

Read full letter at: http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/opinion/killing-the-3c-train-project-was-a-giant-step-backward-1031615.html

 

I-71 is a known nightmare during heavy travel periods.  Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, big Ohio State football games, etc. overwhelm the highway.  Does that happen often?  Not necessarily, but the interstate is in a fairly precarious condition, and traffic easily gets monstrous with just the slightest problem, especially snow.  It could be fixed temporarily by further widening of the highway, but that's only going to induce more traffic and it doesn't solve the weather problems.  Hence the need for 3-C which is much less expensive than widening the highway. 

 

Yes, but how much of the traffic on I-71 consists of people traveling across the state from Cleveland to Columbus, or even Cleveland to Cincy and vice versa?  I'm not sure taking those folks off the roads is going to have that much of an impact on I-71 traffic, even assuming everyone who would otherwise take a car opts to take the train.  The worst traffic is in the major urban cores, which is why we should be directing federal subsidies to improving regional transit, not intrastate high speed rail.

 

^I disagree.    Thousands of Ohioans use rail now just not in the 71 corridor.  Adding this corridor would take many more thousands of vehicles per year off 71 too.  This is much cheaper than adding lanes.  This is also fundamental 21st century planning that Ohio will eventually HAVE to embrace.  USDOT and most other states already have or are taking steps to.

^"Building the 3-C rail is much cheaper than adding lanes."

 

This them has been repeating many times on this board, and I don't think anyone is arguing that building the 3-C rail will be less expensive than adding an additional lane to I-71.

 

Suppose the 3-C rail costs $400 million to build and adding one lane to I-71 costs $900 million to build. One is less expensive than the other. Ok, we have that settled.

 

Whether or not we can afford to build either one of them is an entirely different question. If Ohio had the cash lying around, we could build one, or the other, or both, depending on how much cash we had. But if we don't have the cash laying around, we might not be able to build either one.

 

The simple fact is that Ohio does not have the cash lying around. In fact, we have an $8 billion dollar deficit. The only way to build it is to come up with the funding by reducing funding somewhere else. (Or, accept a gift from the feds).

 

We might be able to reduce spending on highways and divert that money to the 3-C, but that is a tough sell. It's hard to find a solution.

 

 

Killing the 3C train project was a giant step backward

Letter to the Editor

By Steven Conn

7:34 PM Thursday, December 16, 2010

 

So there I was the other day trying to get to work. A little bit of precipitation and the traffic on I-70 goes haywire. A four-car fender-bender and a jackknifed truck, and I’m stuck in major jam. I miss my first two meetings, arriving at work thoroughly aggravated. I have to play catch-up for the rest of the day ...

 

That's a well-written letter. I'm very much in favor of 3C and expanded passenger rail service throughout the Midwest. I think Mr. Conn's letter brings up another issue, though. He's employed at The Ohio State University and lives in Yellow Springs. Before I-70 existed, how many people in the Midwest would have chosen to live where they had to commute that far to work, or would have taken a job that far from where they lived? Much of today's traffic congestion is a consequence of bad land use promoted by flawed public policy, and a large part of that flawed public policy consists of providing subsidized regional and intercity expressways that facilitate sprawl, dispersed living arrangements, and long commutes.

Adding rail, adding lanes, adding capacity NEVER reduces traffic congestion anymore than letting out your belt reduces obesity. I would hope we would have learned that lesson by now, but apparently we haven't. We should never add rail to address highway issues. We add rail because the State of Ohio, indeed the world, that existed when I-71 was built nearly 50 years ago no longer exists today. We are older, our young people demand more travel choices and will vote with their feet to get them, Ohioans have less purchasing power, the world has declining availability of cheap petroleum, and yet our elected officials spend 97 cents of every Ohioan's transportation tax dollar on roads to the exclusion of everything else. So Ohioans' who want to stay here have two choices:  highways or house arrest.

 

That is why we need choices. Ohio can't afford to not provide them.

 

 

I-71 is a known nightmare during heavy travel periods. Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, big Ohio State football games, etc. overwhelm the highway. Does that happen often? Not necessarily, but the interstate is in a fairly precarious condition, and traffic easily gets monstrous with just the slightest problem, especially snow. It could be fixed temporarily by further widening of the highway, but that's only going to induce more traffic and it doesn't solve the weather problems. Hence the need for 3-C which is much less expensive than widening the highway.

 

Yes, but how much of the traffic on I-71 consists of people traveling across the state from Cleveland to Columbus, or even Cleveland to Cincy and vice versa? I'm not sure taking those folks off the roads is going to have that much of an impact on I-71 traffic, even assuming everyone who would otherwise take a car opts to take the train. The worst traffic is in the major urban cores, which is why we should be directing federal subsidies to improving regional transit, not intrastate high speed rail.

 

More to the point, it makes very little sense to widen highways and sign Ohio up for 365 days of wear and tear and building up maintenance demands all for 5-10 days per year of heavy use.  Highways don't need to be routinely jam-packed at 3 a.m. in order to justify widening, but incurring all that expense in order to reap the benefit only a handful of days a year can't possibly be cost-effective.

 

  Cheer up, KJP! House arrest isn't that bad.  :-D

 

"Thanksgiving, New Year's Day, and Ohio State games overwhelm the highway."

 

  Solution: stay off the highway during Thanksgiving, New Year's Day, and Ohio State games.  :-D

  I'm being facetious, but Gramarye is correct: it doesn't pay to build a highway for peak loading on just a few days per year. Nor does it pay to build rail for the same reason.

 

    I think it is a cold, hard fact that Americans are going to be doing less travel in the future. That's not necessarily bad.

Killing the 3C train project was a giant step backward

Letter to the Editor

By Steven Conn

7:34 PM Thursday, December 16, 2010

 

So there I was the other day trying to get to work. A little bit of precipitation and the traffic on I-70 goes haywire. A four-car fender-bender and a jackknifed truck, and Im stuck in major jam. I miss my first two meetings, arriving at work thoroughly aggravated. I have to play catch-up for the rest of the day.

 

And I ask myself: Why does John Kasich want me stuck in traffic like this?

 

Its now official. The State of Ohio has forfeited its share of federal stimulus money designated to build a new network of passenger trains. Kasich claims that he dumped the trains because he is so fiscally responsible. He didnt want to the state to pay its share to run the trains. Now that stimulus money will be split among the other states which are going ahead to build new train systems.

 

Read full letter at: http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/opinion/killing-the-3c-train-project-was-a-giant-step-backward-1031615.html

 

 

The point I find most interesting in Mr. Conn's op-ed is that our "Governor-elect-from-Wall-Street" doesn't quite have the financial smarts he claims.

 

And note that the pump price of gasoline has hit $3.06/gallon in Cleveland and $3.05/gallon in Dayton this evening.

Killing the 3C train project was a giant step backward

Letter to the Editor

By Steven Conn

7:34 PM Thursday, December 16, 2010

 

So there I was the other day trying to get to work. A little bit of precipitation and the traffic on I-70 goes haywire. A four-car fender-bender and a jackknifed truck, and Im stuck in major jam. I miss my first two meetings, arriving at work thoroughly aggravated. I have to play catch-up for the rest of the day.

 

And I ask myself: Why does John Kasich want me stuck in traffic like this?

 

Its now official. The State of Ohio has forfeited its share of federal stimulus money designated to build a new network of passenger trains. Kasich claims that he dumped the trains because he is so fiscally responsible. He didnt want to the state to pay its share to run the trains. Now that stimulus money will be split among the other states which are going ahead to build new train systems.

 

Read full letter at: http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/opinion/killing-the-3c-train-project-was-a-giant-step-backward-1031615.html

 

 

The point I find most interesting in Mr. Conn's op-ed is that our "Governor-elect-from-Wall-Street" doesn't quite have the financial smarts he claims.

 

And note that the pump price of gasoline has hit $3.06/gallon in Cleveland and $3.05/gallon in Dayton this evening.

 

It'll be interesting to see when/if people start connecting the dots and realize they are totally dependent on cars and that Kasich just threw away a chance to start to change that. Nice going, Johnny-boy.

Please note this 79 mph train service is being done in partnership with freight railroad Norfolk Southern, including using the busy Heartland Corridor route (which extends west into Ohio where it will be freight only). 3C will reach northeast cities too via links at Cleveland. Oh, and by the way, Gov. McDonnell is a Republican and so is his director of rail/transit, Elyria, Ohio native Thelma Drake.....

 

Virginia and Norfolk Southern sign landmark agreement for passenger rail service

First train to begin service within three years

 

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,6079.msg532985.html#msg532985

Will Ohio be on hook for 3C rail study?

Adrian Burns

Reporter

Email: [email protected]

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation is taking steps it hopes will help it avoid paying $15 million for a passenger rail study that was halted after Gov.-elect John Kasich won the election and vowed to kill the train plans.

 

The U.S. Department of Transportation on Dec. 9 said it was pulling $385 million of its $400 million federal stimulus commitment to Ohio for passenger train development, but left unclear whether it would reimburse the state for $15 million spent on the first portion of a planned $25 million rail study.

 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/blog/2010/12/state-be-on-hook-for-rail-study.html

Whether or not we can afford to build either one of them is an entirely different question. If Ohio had the cash lying around, we could build one, or the other, or both, depending on how much cash we had. But if we don't have the cash laying around, we might not be able to build either one.

 

You don't think Ohio can afford $17m/year project?  You are a pessimist!  The $400M is a total red herring.  Completely irrelevant to this discussion other than in an abstract federal deficit teeth gnashing way.  I don't know how much of the $900M Ohio would have to pay for highway widening, but probably an order of magnitude more than $17m/year.

Discussion about highway vs rail policy and congestion has been moved to General Transportation.

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=25106.0

Hope someone can recap the discussion hosted by the PD http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/12/future_of_rail_in_ohio.html

 

You don't think Ohio can afford $17m/year project?  You are a pessimist!  The $400M is a total red herring.  Completely irrelevant to this discussion other than in an abstract federal deficit teeth gnashing way.  I don't know how much of the $900M Ohio would have to pay for highway widening, but probably an order of magnitude more than $17m/year.

 

Let's put it this way -- Ohio has to come with an average of $471 million PER YEAR in extra highway M&O (maintenance & operation) costs over the next decade. Yet Ohio keeps adding more pavement, bigger bridges and added highway infrastructure it must maintain -- with no consideration how it can afford to pay their M&O costs, especially in light of reduced gasoline tax revenues from this:

 

http://toledoblade.com/article/20101221/BUSINESS02/12200394/-1/BUSINESS05

 

This is the hypocrisy of the opposition.

Hope someone can recap the discussion hosted by the PD http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/12/future_of_rail_in_ohio.html

 

 

It was completely unstructured and a waste of time.