September 19, 200717 yr I'm kind of glad that the Mall doesn't terminate on the north side, but insteads proceeds visually out into the lake. And I wish that in actuality it would proceed to the edge of lake.
September 20, 200717 yr Advocates believe time finally right for rail Thursday, September 20, 2007 Julie Carr Smyth Associated Press Columbus- A little-noticed state commission believes it has a way for commuters to beat congestion, high gas prices and global warming all at once: Take a train. A regional high-speed rail system - called the Ohio Hub - would also save millions spent building and fixing roads each year. So why, after 10 years in the works, is such a useful idea still on the drawing board? A tangled web of environmental rules, property issues, turf battles and the hefty price tag of $3.8 billion could help explain it. But that soon may change, said Don Damron, a planner for the Ohio Rail Development Commission. A recent economic study commissioned by the panel found that such a system could draw 9.3 million passengers a year by 2025. Read more at: © 2007 The Plain Dealer http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1190278567130100.xml&coll=2
September 20, 200717 yr I read that on Channel 10 of Columbus. I'm sad that they think the plan is too ambitious. To me it seems as if they write it off just because of that. "oh its too ambitious, it won't work". It also seems that people are willing to compromise, to water it down. If you wanter it down, it won't work! It needs to be ambitious! Anyway, let's hope this stays at the forefront and in the news. Let's hope and pray that something actually comes out of it. Something good. Something progressive.
September 20, 200717 yr It depends on how the Ohio Hub is pursued. To my knowledge, no rail system development plan has ever gone from zero trains to 6-8 round trips a day, traveling at 110 mph. At the risk of speaking for the ORDC, I don't think that's their intention either. Instead, you find out what are the achievable steps to implement the plan. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
September 20, 200717 yr As far as I understand things, they never did intend to do the entire Ohio Hub plan in one stroke. Rather, they are planning to go after a startup on one or two corridors, probably the 3-C Corridor between Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati and the Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit corridor. Before that happens, a lot of work remains to be done. A preliminary enivironmental impact statement (PEIS) must be done and then engineering work and after that, sources of funding have to be identified. We may be several years away from seeing the dirt fly...just my assumption...am I right?
September 20, 200717 yr If you read the full study and economic impact reports on the Ohio Hub website ( www.ohiohub.com ), the aim is to have a "master plan" that can be built incrementally. But it is also stated in those reports that (in the view of the economists who did the economic impact study) in order to fully realize those conomic benefits the Ohio Hub needs to be built out completely to a 110 MPH system and done so quickly.
September 21, 200717 yr Yesterday's AP story has already generated an editorial: this one from the Dayton Daily News. He kind of goes a long way to make a point, but he makes it: although I do wish the media would stop using the word "chugging". Trains haven't "Chugged" since the 1950's. Hope keeps chugging along for train advocates in Ohio By Martin Gottlieb, Commentary Friday, September 21, 2007 A bridge collapses in Minnesota, suggesting that the infrastructure for carrying cars might be overstrained. Not only that, but a study comes out showing that people are wasting more and more time and gasoline in traffic jams. And there's global warming. And there's war in the Mideast, where the oil is. And gasoline is $80 a barrel. OK, now are you convinced that Ohio needs a passenger rail system? Maybe not. Truth is, some of us have always wanted a train system. We're just using recent events as sales devices, given our inability to make the sale in past years. You might sense that. Find this article at: http://www.daytondailynews.com/o/content/oh/story/opinions/editorial/2007/09/20/ddn092107gotxxmg.html
September 22, 200717 yr This development in Congress could be very important to the Ohio Hub Plan. from NARP.org Printable Version This morning, the Senate Finance Committee on a voice vote approved bonding authority for states for intercity passenger rail capital projects. The amendment, offered by Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Lott (R-MS), was added to the American Infrastructure Investment and Improvement Act. Kerry-Lott has $900 million a year for calendar years 2008, 2009 and 2010. To be eligible, projects must be included in a state rail plan. Bonds could be issued by a state or a group of states and bondholders would be entitled to an annual credit towards their federal tax liability in lieu of interest payments from the bond issuer. NARP issued a statement today supporting the provision. The Kerry-Lott provision must survive Senate floor action, a House-Senate conference committee, and a potential Presidential veto. President Bush has already threatened to veto the House bill (there is not a companion provision in the House bill). The Finance Committee’s release about today’s bill is on the committee’s website. Statement of Ross B. Capon Executive Director National Association of Railroad Passengers On Senate Finance Committee Approval of Intercity Passenger Rail Bonding Authority September 21, 2007 “NARP applauds the approval by voice vote this morning of $900 million in annual bonding authority for states for intercity passenger rail capital projects as part of the American Infrastructure Investment and Improvement Act. “The rail provision would be the first dedicated, multi-year federal financing assistance for intercity passenger rail investment by states. It covers calendar years 2008, 2009 and 2010 and lets states issue bonds where bondholders are entitled to an annual credit towards the federal tax liability, in lieu of interest payments from bond issue. “This is an important first step towards addressing the needs of the traveling and voting public, who in poll after poll have said they want more passenger trains, and who in referenda and elections have approved rail passenger investments. Senators Kerry and Lott are to be commended for proposing and advancing this measure.” http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline/more/hotline_519/
September 22, 200717 yr It could be. The House needs companion language, which it hasn't been willing to do. If it passes, hopefully all the states with active passenger rail development programs don't soak up all the federal funds to address their massive backlog of unfunded projects. Until the Ohio Hub becomes eligible for federal funds, that's exactly what will happen. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
September 22, 200717 yr And that's why getting the Ohio Hub into and through a successful PEIS (Programatic Environmental Impact Study) is so vital. It is literally Ohio's ticket on the train to DC for funding when that funding become available. BTW: Here's a related story from the Chicago Tribune re: the funding dilemna that ran in today's Columbus Dispatch: Gas prices, global warming renewing interest in high-speed rail By JAN DENNIS Associated Press Writer 11:05 AM CDT, September 9, 2007 BLOOMINGTON, Ill. Seven hours after boarding a train in Kansas City, Douglas Lewandowski finally arrived at Chicago's Union Station -- rested after the 500-mile trip but anxious to get home to Elkhart, Ind. "How long it takes on these trains is so frustrating," said Lewandowski, 55. "I'd be more likely to take more trains if they were faster, but I'm afraid I'll be six feet under before that ever happens." While sleek new passenger trains streak through Europe, Japan and other corners of the world at speeds nearing 200 mph, most U.S. passenger trains chug along at little more than highway speeds -- slowed by a half-century of federal preference for spending on roads and airports. Read more at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/illinois/chi-ap-il-highspeedrail,0,2203491,print.story
September 22, 200717 yr ^Maybe it's just my paranoia having seen all the work of the High-Speed rail commission go the way of the dinosaur in the 80s, but I'm a little fearful of even the use of the term "high speed" anymore. I think it's a big ol' fat target for conservatives (as in the ones who will quick label any rapid rail new service proposal as "gold plated" -- now tell me, has anybody ever seen any train system ride on golden rails?)... I feel more comfortable with, and I think should be pushed, the term: "conventional passenger rail." That's in fact, what it is and that way, no one but an idiot will be able to attack it (and if they do, they can be quickly exposed).
September 22, 200717 yr The only thing about "conventional" passenger rail that worries me is the word "conventional" itself. It implies the status quo and the only status quo most Ohio's know is Amtrak and that's generally not been a good impression: even worse if you live in most sections of Ohio that have either repeatedly gained and lost service from Amtrak. I don't have the same uneasiness about the term "high-speed rail", though I understand your feelings of paranoia. The problem back in 1981-82 was that high-speed rail was a totally foreign concept to Ohioans back then. There wasn't even an Acela running in the Northeast Corridor as an albeit distant point of reference. That's much different today and I think more people are at least aware of what high speed rail is all about. Ultimately, however, I think most people want passenger rail and only care that it is faster and more cost-effective than traveling by car and less hassle than flying for short distances.
September 22, 200717 yr ^I hope you're right, noozer. It is promising we finally have a governor who's behind this. As you know, as a State, we're playing serious catch-up for a fairly large, industrial state viz passenger rail... Ohio-Hub is a great and logical plan... At least some of the media are getting behind this, too.
September 23, 200717 yr Just the same, I would take nothing for granted. Governor Strickland and our state legislators need to be hearing from all of us on this and the message should be build the Ohio Hub: build it quickly and completely. And the first step is taking the plan into a high level environmental impact stage. Get that step done and we're on the books as an official federal transportation project.
September 23, 200717 yr Amtrak may have a negative connotation in Ohio, but it is less so where the infrastructure allows for more reliable operation. It's a vicious circle. And there is no guarantee that a replacement for Amtrak will do any better. Ride the ICE or SNCF. They do stupid stuff, too. But their infrastructure is kick ass and so are most of their trains. "Solutions to our current problems have to be found, not imposed from previous centuries. High-speed rail is just a polished version of 19th century technology," said William Garrison, co-author of "Tomorrow's Transportation" and a retired civil engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Too bad the reporter didn't ask this asswipe about the viability of ocean-going shipping. If 100 years is all a mode of transportation is good for, then boats should have been banned more than 2,000 years ago. I love Americans. We act as if the world before 1776 was prehistoric. If the age of something is the determining factor on whether it can continue to make a productive contribution, then maybe the senior Mr. Garrison was speaking of himself. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
September 23, 200717 yr Just the same, I would take nothing for granted. Governor Strickland and our state legislators need to be hearing from all of us on this and the message should be build the Ohio Hub: build it quickly and completely. And the first step is taking the plan into a high level environmental impact stage. Get that step done and we're on the books as an official federal transportation project. What other funding sources are available for the PEIS than a federal earmark? Has state funding (ODOT, ODOD, etc) funding programs been pursued to get this phase rolling? I understand that getting federal funding would show federal support for the project and save the state money, but wouldn't a state that funded its own preliminary stages show the feds that that state was really supportive of the proposed project and committed - something other than passing resolutions.
September 23, 200717 yr It's pretty safe to say that all funding options are being looked at, but some kind of federal appropriation still seems the most likely bet in combination with a percentage of state funding. As for funding a PEIS completely with state $$$, the question becomes: from what source? Can't do it with the state gasoline tax, since that's banned by law for use for anything other than highways. Creating a new source of funding will take convincing the current General Assembly.
September 23, 200717 yr Here's a list of recent federal grants for intercity passenger planning and projects, including the non-federal funding shares. As you can see, tt342998, the FRA seems to prefer a 50/50 cost-sharing for planning (but more like an 80/20 split for capital projects)... OBLIGATION STATE/RECIPIENT DATE DOLLAR AMOUNT PROJECT DESCRIPTION California HSRA 9/30/03 $1,241,875 FRA $1,241,875 State Final EIR/EIS Implementation California HSRA 5/17/02 $1,250,000 FRA $1,250,000 State EIS of California high-speed California DOT 9/26/97 $100,000 FRA $200,000 CALTRANS Prelim Feasibility Study of San Diego-Los Angeles-San Francisco-Sacramento High-Speed Rail Corridor Florida HSRA 6/18/03 $2,136,025 FRA $2,136,025 State Florida HSR (Orlando-Tampa) Florida HSRA 5/7/02 $3,000,000 FRA $3,000,000 State EIS for Orlando to Tampa Florida DOT 9/26/97 $100,000 FRA $7,256,799 State Ridership & Mktg; operations plan Georgia DOT 3/5/02 $199,560 FRA $25,000 NC $75,000 SC $100,000 GA Charlotte-Atlanta-Macon Transport Plan Illinois DOT 9/10/97 $100,000 FRA $150,000 State Tier I EIS St. Louis – Dwight Illinois DOT 4/25/97 $200,000 FRA $200,000 State Tier I EIS St. Louis - Dwight Illinois DOT 9/29/95 $3,000,000, FRA $ 750,000 State Rehab 6 mi of track and signal systems between Granite City and East St. Louis Michigan DOT 9/11/97 $118,695 FRA $127,380 State $43,425 State In-Kind Update ridership and revenue forecast; financial and operating plan for Detroit to Chicago Minnesota DOT 4/2/97 $300,000 FRA $300,000 State Minneapolis to Chicago HSR study Nevada – RTCSN N/A $200,000 FRA Las Vegas to LA HSR study North Carolina DOT 9/30/03 $496,750 FRA $521,528 State Tier II EIS (Petersburg VA to Raleigh NC SEHSRC North Carolina DOT 9/10/97 $200,000 FRA $300,000 State Tier I EIS (Washington to Charlotte) North Carolina DOT 4/27/95 $1,000,000 FRA $ 0 State SEHSRC Raleigh to Richmond Oregon DOT 10/31/96 $120,000 FRA $120,000 State PEIS Eugene to Portland Oregon DOT 1/15/97 $1,000,000 FRA $ 0 State Portland Union Station trackwork Pennsylvania DOT 10/11/96 $95,000 FRA Project not undertaken. SRRTC N/A $800,000 Gulf Coast HSR Corridor Study SRRTC N/A $600,000 Gulf Coast HSR Corridor Study SRRTC 9/26/97 $ 81,305 FRA $ 81, 305 State Corridor Feasibility Study SRRTC 9/13/02 $300,000 FRA $100,000 LA $100,000 MS $100,000 AL Mobile to New Orleans Corridor Vermont DOT 9/10/03 $248,375 FRA $250,000 States Boston to Montreal HSR Phase II Vermont DOT 9/28/01 $199,560 FRA $66,667 State Cash $133,333 Local Montreal to Boston Transp. Plan Virginia DRPT 9/10/02 $50,000 FRA $50,000 State In-Kind Operating support for VA-NC Interstate HSR Commission Virginia DRPT 9/26/97 $100,000 FRA $100,000 State Signal system study of Washington-Richmond-Charlotte Virginia DRPT 10/17/96 $185,000 FRA $185,000 State Signal System Study of Washington-Richmond- Charlotte Washington State DOT N/A $750,000 FRA Seattle to Everett Corridor Washington State DOT 9/26/97 $170,000 FRA $636,000 State Program level EIS Wisconsin DOT 9/28/01 $997,800 FRA $1,450,000 State $1,670,000 Amtrak Midwest Regional Rail Initiative plan Wisconsin DOT 10/21/96 $200,000 FRA $500,000 State Midwest Regional Rail Initiative plan Wisconsin DOT 2/4/99 $200,000 FRA Eval. of Turbine Electric Loco ### "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
September 23, 200717 yr Just the same, I would take nothing for granted. Governor Strickland and our state legislators need to be hearing from all of us on this and the message should be build the Ohio Hub: build it quickly and completely. And the first step is taking the plan into a high level environmental impact stage. Get that step done and we're on the books as an official federal transportation project. My e-mail's there by tomorrow.
September 23, 200717 yr "Solutions to our current problems have to be found, not imposed from previous centuries. High-speed rail is just a polished version of 19th century technology," said William Garrison, co-author of "Tomorrow's Transportation" and a retired civil engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Too bad the reporter didn't ask this asswipe about the viability of ocean-going shipping. If 100 years is all a mode of transportation is good for, then boats should have been banned more than 2,000 years ago. I love Americans. We act as if the world before 1776 was prehistoric. If the age of something is the determining factor on whether it can continue to make a productive contribution, then maybe the senior Mr. Garrison was speaking of himself. Geez what a jackass... and I thought Berkeley was a progressive institution.
September 24, 200717 yr Automobiles are 19th century technology and we haven't abandoned them. What's the difference???
September 24, 200717 yr KJP - thanks for the information on funding for HSR plans. One concern I have is that most of the above studies were funded during a time of less a crunch on transportation dollars. The second concern is that federal earmarks seem to be taboo - especially when it comes to transportation projects. In my mind, the Ohio Hub is deserving of an earmark (especially considering other projects that have no chance of being constructed get earmarks). I guess my question was has a private-public approach been explored? Possibly funding the PEIS with a combination of funds from public sources (state, cities served by the plan, MPOs) and private sources (rail companies, port authorities, airports). Overall, I'd just like to see the preliminary phases in place sooner rather than later.
September 25, 200717 yr Or contributions from affected states (and even the province of another country)! If they won't contribute, then what message does that send to the FRA regarding the level of support from four states and one province that would also be served by the Ohio Hub? Look at it with the FRA's eyes. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
September 26, 200717 yr I think the state can afford to pay for the PEIS itself. When you'll be getting over $9 billion in economic returns (conservative) on a $4 billion investment, it's worth the $5-8 million for the study.
September 26, 200717 yr Or contributions from affected states (and even the province of another country)! If they won't contribute, then what message does that send to the FRA regarding the level of support from four states and one province that would also be served by the Ohio Hub? Look at it with the FRA's eyes. Absolutely, if other states would chip in (as they should), the costs would be lessened to a degree for Ohio. Since the Ohio Hub would primarily serve Ohio residents, the state of Ohio or Ohio cities should kick in the majority of the funding. I'm not as familiar with ODOD funding as I am ODOT funding, but doesn't ODOD have programs available to fund at least a portion of these studies?
September 26, 200717 yr Part of the PEIS process, I believe, is to bring all of the "partner" states back to the table to begin discussing shared costs, especially those states also involved with the Midwest Regional Rail System (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan). The Economic Impact Study of the Hub Plan also looks at the possibility of sharing costs with proposed commuter rail projects as a way of reducing costs for all involved. I doubt you're going to get Ohio cities to chip in the costs for the PEIS. Though vitally important, it would still be viewed as a study and (unfortunately) not the integral beginning of the process of building the Hub System. What cities are more likely to chip in is funding for brick and mortar projects like station improvements to existing stations and other projects, which could later be seen as local/state matching funds by the FRA.... once a federal program is in place. Some communities have already done some of this.... Toledo, Sandusky, Galion. Don't look for funding to come out of ODOT's budget unless it is federal $$$ passing through. Remember, ODOT is facing a huge deficit and couldn't put state fuel tax funds into rail even if they wanted to. Don't know about ODOD, as that is new ground to plow for funding. Worth asking.
September 26, 200717 yr It would be curious to see the new ODOT administrations view on possible PEIS funding for the Ohio Hub given some recent comments about the Department becoming more "multi-modal." This would be a perfect opportunity to show that new direction. As for cities funding a portion, it may be likely that they would not be willing/capable of funding an study. I was just thinking since station "locating" studies are part of the cost, any contribution by cities could be earmarked for this portion of the study. MPO funding could also be sought for this portion. The example I have is for Columbus to partner with MORPC, Columbus Convention Center, Port Columbus, and Nationwide to fund a station location study. As for ODOT funding, wasn't ODOT (federal planning dollars) funding used on the feasibility studies? Are these funds still available and/or why couldn't they be used for a PEIS?
October 1, 200717 yr Great editorial from today's Willoughby News-Herald: 10/01/2007 Buy the ticket for high-speed trains Imagine slashing your travel budget. Imagine avoiding traffic congestion. Imagine getting more work done as you travel to your early-morning appointment in a city within 400 miles. Imagine the Ohio Hub starting in seven years linking Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati - and later Dayton, Toledo and destinations throughout the Midwest and beyond. It's hard to imagine since this high-speed rail is just a vision here now. But it's commonplace in Europe, and leaders at the Ohio Rail Development Commission believe it will become a reality here based on a new study. Economic and environmental factors should succeed in driving trains traveling at 110 mph as a preferred mode of transportation. Read more at: http://www.zwire.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1698&dept_id=21846&newsid=18870419 ©The News-Herald 2007
October 1, 200717 yr ^I think it needs to be clarified to the media that the trains are expected to cover "above the rail costs" or the "operating costs". The fares will never cover the capital costs.
October 4, 200717 yr Council: City won't support rail-hub study Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2007 By TARA STUBBS-FIGURSKI Enterprise Staff Writer Gahanna City Council voted 4-3 Monday night to reject a request to pass a resolution of support for an Ohio Rail Hub study. The Ohio Rail Commission requested that Gahanna join 25 Ohio communities and organizations in supporting the federal funding of a rail environmental-impact study. The proposed plan includes a 1,244-mile intercity/interstate passenger rail service with 44 stations. Columbus is projected to be the second major hub. Council member John McAlister, who voted against the resolution, asked council members to consider railroad company profits before making a decision. He said the price of railroad stock has increased consistently for the past five years. "The railroad is not asking for this feasibility study," he said. "Government would be funding something that railroad has not asked." Council member Nick Hogan said he was concerned about the lack of freight-rail discussion. "There are still people out there wanting to push light rail," he said. "If there really was a market for it, it would already exist." Council member Tom Kneeland said there is an economic necessity for freight rail, and he doesn't believe freight rail will take precedence. The government helped supply funding for the original railroads and that project failed, according to council member Nancy McGregor. She said government should not provide more funding. Council member Tom Evers said although at some point, the federal government provided land grants for the railroad, the government consistently funds highway construction with the gas tax. "Look at other transportation infrastructure, highway or aviation; (the government) continues to invest in that infrastructure," Evers said. Evers said the price of oil and gas continues to rise and rail is a more economic and environmentally safe way to move freight and people. The highways are at capacity, council member Debra Payne said. The study would look at alternative ways of moving people or freight, she said. Council president Shane Ewald, who is on the tax incentive board, said he knows one Gahanna company that came to the city to look for freight rail. He would support the resolution because rail is important to businesses in Gahanna, Ewald said. Kneeland, McGregor, Hogan and McAlister voted against the resolution. Payne, Evers and Ewald voted for it. I don’t get Gahanna at all and some of the comments made by the council members. If rail stock has increased over the past five years, wouldn’t that mean the demand for rail services has increased? And while the Ohio Hub is primarily geared for passengers, it also increases capacity of the rail lines to improve freight operations. Hence the support from NS and CSX! And the comment about a “market for light rail” – I do not understand why rail transportation cannot receive subsidies or must be profitable when no other form of public transportation is profitable and receives billions in subsidies.
October 4, 200717 yr "If there really was a market for it, it would already exist." Dumbest quote ever. By this logic, we'd all be sitting in caves right now.
October 4, 200717 yr What effort was made to educate Gahanna City Council members before this resolution was presented to them? It's clear by their ignorant responses that no such educational effort was undertaken. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 4, 200717 yr ORDC delivered testimony on the Ohio Hub Plan the week prior to the Gahanna Council vote and briefed the entire council on the plan. Gahanna's own planning staff also presented information on the Ohio Hub Plan to council members as well. Given the close vote, I suspect there will be another attempt to seek approval of the resolution. Keep in mind that, unlike northern Ohio which sees twice-daily Amtrak service , Central Ohio hasn't seen passenger trains since the last run of Amtrak's National Limited rolled past Gahanna in the mid-70's. Of course there is education to be done. It's hard to get your arms around something about which you have little for a frame of reference. At the same time, Gahanna council members were aware that both the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) and City of Columbus City Council have approved the very same resolution of support. In fact, the City of Gahanna's own planning staff attended the MORPC meeting in which the resolution was unanimously approved. Let's not get up on our high horses just yet. It's just one vote and the issue can always be brought up again.
October 4, 200717 yr Let's not get up on our high horses just yet. It's just one vote and the issue can always be brought up again. and seriously, its just gahanna.
October 4, 200717 yr ^ That's true, but it just goes to show the amont of work that remains to be done.
October 5, 200717 yr Are any additional public presentations scheduled for the Ohio Hub? I had not heard about the Gahanna presentation, but would like to attend some central Ohio presentations if there are more currently scheduled.
October 5, 200717 yr The Gahanna presentation came about at the city's request. Don't know when more will be scheduled, but what you can access at www.ohiohub.com is very much the same as what you would get in a presentation. There probably won't be a formal series of public presentations until after a decision is made to advance the plan into a high-level environmental impact study. That will trigger more public involvement as routes, possible station locations and infrastructure needs are nailed down.
October 5, 200717 yr Keep in mind that, unlike northern Ohio which sees twice-daily Amtrak service , Central Ohio hasn't seen passenger trains since the last run of Amtrak's National Limited rolled past Gahanna in the mid-70's. Of course there is education to be done. It's hard to get your arms around something about which you have little for a frame of reference. You're preaching to the choir on that one! "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 5, 200717 yr Ok, who on this list from Columbus is going to write a letter to the paper countering this?
October 10, 200717 yr The Transportation Committee of the Cincinnati MPO (OKI) today approved a resolution of support for the Ohio Hub. The resolution asks the Governor and our Congressional delegation to pursue and fund a high-level Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Hope to know more details soon, but that's what I know for now. :clap:
October 15, 200717 yr Rail commission eyes old Newark station as stop along rail hub Sunday, October 14, 2007 LORI WINCE ThisWeek Staff Writer Newark could become part of a passenger and freight rail line running from Pittsburgh to Columbus if planners can find funding to begin the project. "We're working with staff in the governor's office on the next steps," said Stu Nicholson, public-information office for the Ohio Rail Development Commission. Nicholson said the commission paid for two economic impact studies on the "Ohio Rail Hub," which could include train stations in Newark, Steubenville, Columbus, Cleveland, Galion, Springfield, Dayton, Middletown and Cincinnati. It includes provisions for passenger and freight service. Stephen Fowler, Newark's economic development director, said the project is different from a regular commuter train, which has several trains running back and forth between a series of stops. This train between Pittsburgh and Columbus would bring passengers to and from Ohio. Fowler said Newark is interested in the "$3-billion in development activity near stations," which could benefit the city and its train-station location. He said train stations along lines of this sort often have "transit-oriented development" nearby, including housing, retail and other mixed-use developments. Newark could be one of the only train stops between Pittsburgh and Columbus, which has Fowler and others wondering where the best location for a train station would be. The Evans Foundation currently is housed at the old Pennsylvania Railroad station at 25 E. Walnut St. in downtown Newark. That is listed as a potential stop in the Pittsburgh-Columbus line. But Sarah Wallace, president of the foundation, said she is not familiar with the project. Fowler said city officials have to consider several factors before determining where the best stop for the train would be. He said he is not sure if foundation owners would want the building to become a train stop, and he is not sure if the building itself would be appropriate for a train stop. The trains that would operate in the Ohio hub would be "modern, fast, convenient and comfortable, with the on-board amenities that help people relax or do business," information from the rail commission states. Fowler said the Pennsylvania Railroad station was built in a different time for a different type of train. Nicholson said the line could have six to eight trains running daily at 110 miles per hour. Nicholson said federal funding may become available for rail, and the Ohio Rail Commission currently is trying to solicit support from areas throughout the state. So far, the commission has letters of support for funding an environmental study for the project from Cincinnati City Council, Cleveland, Columbus City Council, CSX Transportation, Cuyahoga County commissioners, Dayton, Galion City Council, Lima City Council, Mahoning and Trumbull counties, Lorain County commissioners, Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission, Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC), Monroe County Planning Commission, Norfolk Southern Corp., Ohio Contractors Association, Ohio Environmental Council, Ohio Senate, Shaker Heights, Shelby City Council, Sylvania City Council, Toledo City Council, Toldeo-Lucas County Port Authority, Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, University Heights and Vermilion. Gahanna City Council in nearby Franklin County rejected support of the rail-hub study in September. Andrew Brenner, executive director of All Aboard Ohio, said Gahanna council members are missing the importance of the study. "The reality is that the demand for passenger rail is immense -- 80 percent of Ohioans want trains, as reported in the Buckeye State Poll by the Ohio State University Center for Survey Research. ... In every state that has invested in passenger rail, people have responded by riding," he wrote in a letter to ThisWeek. He continued: "To obtain passenger service, the Ohio hub plan moves truck traffic from already congested and worn highways." Information from the rail commission's economic impact study states the Ohio hub could create 16,700 permanent jobs, generate more than $3-billion in development activity near stations, increase land values and create an annual $80-million impact on state tourism by generating 320,000 new overnight trips. Nicholson said Gov. Ted Strickland has "embraced" the project. Now officials need to find funding sources and determine which corridors need to be built first. Nicholson said when studying commuter traffic, the commission found a strong need for commuter service between Zanesville and Columbus. "There's some pretty good traffic through there," he said. The rail hub could engage railroads in existing corridors, benefit freight shipping, increase rail-line capacity and improve infrastructure, Nicholson said. A hub would take eight to 10 years to build, and it would be at least three years before any trains could begin running, he said.
October 15, 200717 yr Not sure, the Dispatch publishes a separate insert for each region of central Ohio. The article I posted was from the Licking County insert and I assume the AAO letter was in the Gahanna insert.
October 16, 200717 yr Where would the Columbus RR passenger station be located in the Ohio Hub plan? (I did not find it in my cursory view of the AllAboardOhio and ORDC websites (If you like chit chatting about the Ohio Hub project)).
October 16, 200717 yr This was in the Warren Tribune-Chronicle. I'm not sure if this is related to the Ohio Hub plan or ORDC, but I think this might be an excellent opportunity for the region, especially with Youngstown's recent resurgence and Warren's struggle at revitalization Hub proposed for Yo-Warren airport By JOHN GOODALL Tribune Chronicle WARREN — Developing a hub at the airport that combines rail, air and highway service and offers trade zone status was among ideas proposed at the inaugural meeting of the county’s new economic development committee. Such a facility, if created, could be the cornerstone of any effort to market this area to the outside world, Dan Banks said. He represented state Sen. Capri Cafaro’s office at Wednesday’s session. Those attending the meeting noted that at least one railroad has a line that is only a few miles away from Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport in Vienna. Banks said a gravel bed has been installed that could carry an extension to the proposed hub. [...] FOR MORE INFO, VISIT: www.tribtoday.com [email protected]
October 16, 200717 yr He said this community lacks amenities like a dog or skateboard park.^ for that pug I saw on YouTube who rides a skateboard. :laugh:
Create an account or sign in to comment