There are 25 states in the U.S. which financially support passenger rail service, such as Amtrak intercity service or regional/commuter rail (like New Mexico does with Albuquerque to Santa Fe, or Maryland does with Washington D.C. to Fredericksburg, etc.).

 

States which annually subsidize Amtrak service are:

http://members.cox.net/neotrans/States%20support%20for%20pass%20rail2008.pdf

 

A complete list of states which support intercity/regional rail service, along with their population densities, appears at:

 

http://www.allaboardohio.org/cms/index.php/content/why_rail

 

Population densities are courtesy of the World Almanac.

 

Among U.S. states, these are their population densities. Those in italics have an active state-supported regional or intercity passenger rail program (operating and/or capital funding from year-to-year). In other words, the 17 most densely populated states (excluding Hawaii and Ohio) financially support regional/intercity passenger rail…

1 New Jersey - 1,046

2 Rhode Island - 961.1

3 Massachusetts - 765

4 Connecticut - 679.3

5 Maryland - 497.2

6 New York - 382.4

7 Delaware - 347.8

8 Ohio - 267.1

9 Pennsylvania - 266.9

10 Florida - 245.9

11 Illinois - 207.6

12 California - 194.8

13 Hawaii - 176.7

14 Michigan - 164.9

15 Virginia - 158.7

16 Indiana - 152.1 NOTE

17 North Carolina - 138.3

18 New Hampshire - 123.2

19 Tennessee - 120.2

20 South Carolina - 118.2

21 Georgia - 114.3

22 Louisiana - 97.6

23 Kentucky - 93.5

24 Wisconsin - 91.2

25 Alabama - 80.6

26 Washington - 75.4

27 Missouri - 74.9

28 West Virginia - 74.8

29 Texas - 66.2

30 Vermont - 61.3

31 Minnesota - 55.7

32 Mississippi - 55.3

33 Iowa - 50

34 Oklahoma - 46.2

35 Arkansas - 45.5

36 Maine - 40

37 Arizona - 33

38 Colorado - 32.6

39 Kansas - 30.5

40 Oregon - 30.4

41 Utah - 21.5

42 Nebraska - 20.7

43 New Mexico - 12.8

44 Idaho - 12.6

45 Nevada - 11.7

46 North Dakota - 9.2

47 South Dakota - 9.17

48 Montana - 5.55

49 Wyoming - 4.7

50 Alaska - 0.99

 

NOTE:  Indiana collects and redistributes county funds to support the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District which operates the South Shore commuter rail line between Chicago and South Bend.

Substitute Ohio House Bill 2 -- unveiled Thursday -- includes this:

 

Ohio Revised Code Section 4981.40

 

Requires ODOT and the Ohio Rail Development

Commission (ORDC) to include all federally designated

high-speed rail corridors in Ohio and all passenger rail

corridors in the Ohio Hub Study in any overall

programmatic environmental impact study or other

comprehensive high-speed rail project development study.

 

Requires ODOT and ORDC to work with Amtrak to improve

existing service between Toledo and Cleveland.

 

Requires ODOT and ORDC to examine the financial and

economic feasability of developing a passenger rail system

between Toledo and Columbus, including necessary

characteristics of a viable connection between the cities.

 

Fiscal effect: Potential increase in costs to examine the

feasibility of developing a passenger rail system between

Toledo and Columbus.

 

See p. 32 at

http://www.lbo.state.oh.us/fiscal/budget/transportation/TransBudget128/CompareDoc-Transportation-H1.pdf

^^ Nice Pop. Density list, KJP. Where did you get it?

 

Honestly, I wonder why I don't see Pop. Density lists more often, because it should seem like the determining factor for these type of decisions. I guess politicians disagree?

The source noted is the World Almanac.

 

Population density isn't necessarily the determining factor. Note that Alaska financially supports passenger rail. It's last on the list.

 

But uninformed politicians often bring up the falsehood "Ohio doesn't have the population density to support rail." So I am obliged to correct them.

Arizona has rail. In/around Tempe and Phoenix there is what they call light rail. Does this not count as intercity?

No. Even the 100+ mile line of the Long Island Railroad from New York City's Penn Station to Montauk isn't considered intercity. It's considered commuter rail because the service is designed and scheduled to link the hinterlands of a core city to that core city. Thus, even Albuquerque to Santa Fe is considered to be regional/commuter rail (between light rail and intercity rail), even though it links two cities. But the feds consider Santa Fe to be in Albuquerque's hinterlands. And that was included in the list above because the state helps to pay for it as an ongoing program.

 

Now, between Salt Lake City and Ogden, there is also a regional/commuter rail service which operates on a freight railroad line (like the New Mexico service). But I don't believe the state of Utah pays for that service on an ongoing basis (either capital or operating). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I see no problem in waiting for Amtrak to study this a bit more before throwing a ton of money at it.  I would hate seeing it get half-assed and fail.  We're trying to rush it so much because of silly stimulus money.  It's a service I'd love to see, and would use myself.. but if it's going to need to be heavily propped-up by the state government to compete with driving/flying then I don't know if the time is right to build it.  My heart is with wanting it to succeed, and I have a feeling my opinions are the case with most Republicans in the state. 

 

Boehner is representing his people to the federal government, and basically believes that this is an example of a project that shouldn't be federally funded, and I agree to a part.  It either needs to be a substantial federal investment in a national rail system, or state investment in projects like this.  I'd personally like to see the former of those.

This has been studied extensively by the Ohio Rail Development Commission, which spent years carefully crafting the Ohio Hub plan. This is, in essence, a startup of one part of that plan. Nobody is trying to rush it. In fact, it's decades later than it should have been. The "silly stimulus money" will go to another state and put Ohio and its economy further and further behind if we don't move forward now. Crap or get off the crapper. If we don't do it now, we'll never do it.

 

And, of course it will be "propped up" by the government -- just as auto travel, the trucking industry and the airlines are propped up by the government. ALL transportation is subsidized, with the possible exception of walking. And don't give me the nonsense about cars operating on user fees. Those user fees cover a small percentage of the nation's road miles, and even the state and federal DOTs that get those fees are in serious financial trouble because those fees don't pay the costs.

 

And don't give me this stuff about "either" a federal or state investment. It needs to be BOTH -- just like the highways, just like the airports. If rail had not been shut out of the state and federal transportation policies for so many decades, it would get the same federal-state match that have propped up the highways and auto and trucking industries all these decades.

The first study of the 3-C was done in 1977.... and at least a half-dozen more studies since then...and all pointing to the same conclusion.... that the 3-C is the strongest performing potential corridor in Ohio....if not now...when?

It's not in Ohio....but this story from Maine illustrates exactly what could be happening in Ohio if we make the investment in the 3-C Corridor and a fully-built, robust Ohio Hub.

 

Saco rolls out its $2.2 million economic engine

The train station is expected to draw more riders – and visitors to Biddeford-Saco.

 

By NOEL K. GALLAGHER, Staff Writer February 27, 2009

 

SACO — The new $2.2 million train station on Saco Island, which officials hope will boost tourism and economic activity, will make its debut today with a ribbon-cutting ceremony.

 

The 5,000-square-foot building, powered by a wind turbine and heated and cooled with a geothermal energy system, will have an Amtrak self-service ticketing kiosk and house the Biddeford-Saco Chamber of Commerce.

 

Read more at:

 

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=241946&ac=PHnws

The stimulus money that the 3-C project would be eligible for can only be used for passenger rail projects. There are 10s of billions of dollars worth of passenger rail projects nationwide that are shovel ready now or will be by Sept. 30, 2012 that all stimulus funds have to expended. We can apply between now and then, but Ohio has to declare its intentions to the US Department of Transportation in the next couple of months (I think April 18 is the date).

 

So if Ohio doesn't use this money, another state will. And we're already behind most of them -- these are the same states which offer a quality of life and until last year a vibrant economy that our young people want. They also offer a variety of transportation choices, including passenger rail service between their principal cities. There will never be a better time to catch up to them than this.

The other point (which has been made again and again) is that rail (definitely within Ohio) is not competing with the airlines. Who the heck flies within the state except to catch a connecting flight out of Cincy or Cleveland.

Actually, passenger rail does compete with rail.  Harrisburg, Pennsylvania's state capital, lost its only non-stop flight service to New York about a year ago.  The airline's reason: it couldn't compete with the new 110-mph service on the Amtrak-operated "Keystone Corridor".

 

 

And in the places where rail does not or can't compete with airlines, the reason is solely that the national transportation policy has long favored air over rail and has subsidized air travel with billions upon billions more for air than for rail. And even with those subsidies, the airlines are not profitable and are slashing service to areas that have grown to depend on it. Why do they depend on it? Because the trains are gone.

The whole subsidy argument is BS I agree.  You all make excellent points on this.

Thanks. Really, we need to lay out that all transportation is subsidized, and only when we accept that notion can we have a rational, informed discussion of what our transportation policy and priorities should be.

I was mostly speaking to intra-Ohio rail versus air. Obviously rail and air compete intensely along the East Coast and increasingly the West Coast.

But a connecting flight within Ohio is absurb. Those are precisely the routes that rail would serve much more efficiently. Take a train from Columbus to Hopkins and take off from there.

This just in.... Passenger rail service creates economic development far in excess of its public sector costs. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.....

 

http://coastaljournal.com/website/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=469:report-finds-downeaster-generates-billions

 

Report finds Downeaster generates billions       

 

BRUNSWICK - A Chicago-based research firm has determined that the Amtrak Downeaster is more than a train ride; it’s an economic engine that will generate billons of dollars in economic impact in Maine over the next two decades.  The new report, produced by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), concludes that the Downeaster is a catalyst for new “transit oriented development” (TOD) projects which will have profound long-term positive impacts on the construction, professional, service and retail industries of Maine.  CNT suggests that a strategy of optimizing growth in TODs built around Downeaster stations will hold several strategic economic advantages for Maine people and communities.

 

According to CNT, development projects along the Downeaster corridor will generate $3.3B in construction investment and create more than 8,000 new jobs in Maine over the next 22 years.  This will lead to the contribution of more than $55M in new state tax revenues annually.  The CNT report further explains that new resident and business relocation associated with TODs along the Downeaster corridor will contribute nearly $1B in new purchasing power annually to Maine’s economy by the year 2030.    The extension of service to Brunswick and Rockland would create an additional 2,582 jobs, generate an additional $16.5M in annual tax revenues, and $290M in annual purchasing power by the year 2030.

...........

 

  A complete copy of the report is available at www.amtrakdowneaster.com.

I just rode Amtrak from Portland, OR to Seattle.  They have 5 trains a day, but the trains themselves are in dilapidated condition.  The coach interiors were hopelessly worn out and unpleasant compared to the NE corridor trains.  If this service starts in Ohio, we need to get either new or reasonably new rolling stock.  At least something on par with the NE corridor coaches.  Today I felt like I was riding a train in Mexico or some other poor country. 

Did you ride the Talgo or some other equipment? Talgos are supposedly quite nice.

KJP's post about the economic impact of the Downeaster ought to be cut and pasted and sent to every member of the Ohio General Assembly. This is exactly the mind of service being proposed for the 3-C Corridor.... 79mph max speed... not even high speed...and look at the private sector return they are seeing on their investment of state & federal $$$.

I just saw the video and the article concerning the Downeaster and I agree with Noozer that this should be seen by all legislators. This isn't the choo-choo to nostalgialand. This is an engine for economic development, jobs and a better quality of life for all of us.

 

The skeptics in the legislature need to remove their blinders. It's a new day and that demands new solutions to the problems we face. Ohio's competitive position will continue to decline if we don't do this.

 

These people also need to realize they will never get a better deal from the federal government. Yet they are looking a gift horse in the mouth. We won't move ahead with that sort of attitude.

 

I'm reminded of a conversation I had the other day. A person asked me how we were going to get through our economic crisis. I said, "Well, we got through two world wars and a depression. We'll make it through this." It amazes me that we have such a lack of confidence in ourselves and this country. Where is that good old "can-do" spirit? Where is that old attitude that "we are Americans---we can do anything?

 

Well, we can do anything---if we decide to do it. To those myopic "can't-do" types, I say "Can't never did nuthin." If we had that sort of attitude back in the day, we never would have put a man on the moon or built the Interstate Highway System. We can and must do better.

Back to the Downeaster. If we extrapolate the numbers for that corridor to the 3-C Corridor, what would we come up with? It'd be interesting to know.

If you look at the economic impact study numbers for the Ohio Hub's 3-C Corridor at a fully-built 110-mph system, you can lower those numbers somewhat and still come out with positive numbers for a 79-mph 3-C.

I don't remember seeing this article posted yet. Also see the map at...

 

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090227/NEWS16/902270361

 

Article published February 27, 2009

Budget change requires study of Toledo-Columbus rail link

Proposal in Ohio House advances previous plan

 

By JIM PROVANCE

BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU CHIEF

 

COLUMBUS - Proposed changes to Gov. Ted Strickland's two-year transportation budget would require the state to study the economic feasibility of direct passenger rail service between Toledo and Columbus.

 

The language developed in the Ohio House stops short of mandating development of such a line to complement the one being immediately pushed by Mr. Strickland to connect Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, and Cleveland.

 

.........

^I don't have an issue with studying the Columbus-Toledo line, but why not extend it to Detroit?  IMO, what makes this line attractive is connecting to Detroit Metro Airport and Detroit CBD.  Maybe going a step further, why not study the economic impacts of the corridor that is already under state control (Col-Pitt)?

That's because the Toledo-Detroit portion is in Michigan and not in Ohio. And therein lies the rub: The only corridor entirely in Ohio is the 3-C Corridor and that means the state has control of the development of the entire line. Every other corridor is an interstate route.

That's because the Toledo-Detroit portion is in Michigan and not in Ohio. And therein lies the rub: The only corridor entirely in Ohio is the 3-C Corridor and that means the state has control of the development of the entire line. Every other corridor is an interstate route.

 

I figured that would be the reason, but don't we partner with other states on highway studies (i.e. Brent Spence Bridge, or any other Ohio River Crossing)?  I guess my issue with doing an economic study on a Col-Toledo line is that you will miss two of the biggest economic generators - Detroit Metro and Detroit CBD and the study would not show as "good" as numbers as it should.

OK likely for Cincinnati passenger rail

By Jon Craig • [email protected] • March 2, 2009

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090302/NEWS0108/903030305

 

COLUMBUS - A passenger rail line connecting Cincinnati to Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland and possibly Toledo is part of the $7.5 billion state transportation budget that could pass the Ohio House this week.

 

The last time passenger trains operated along the so-called "3-C corridor" - Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland - was 1971.

 

Mayor Mark Mallory supports the rail project, according to his spokesman, Jason Barron. Statewide passenger rail service would complement a separate local proposal by the mayor to resurrect city streetcars using $69 million in federal stimulus money, Barron said. Cincinnati proposes a streetcar system from Downtown to Uptown, the area around the University of Cincinnati and several hospitals.

 

 

 

 

"It has been 27 years since Ohio voters were asked to support high-speed rail. In 1982, voters rejected a penny increase in the state sales tax to build a system linking 13 cities."

 

You have got to be kidding?

Nope. I remember it well. Rule #1: don't ask voters to increase taxes in a recession, especially when few in Ohio had any knowledge of what a passenger train was. That's why we need to build conventional-speed services first. When use of it reaches a critical mass, then you ask voters to support high-speed rail as California did. California had tried to build HSR several times before, going back to the early 1980s, too. But they decided to build up the Amtrak services with affordable, frequent, reliable and, ultimately, popular trains. Last fall, they asked voters to supporters a $10 billion bond issue and, guess what, since they knew what trains were and that they would be used, they approved it.

Could the 3-C debate reverberate beyond Ohio? A writer at the Daily Kos thinks so. The outcome of the 3-C Corridor debate in the Ohio General Assembly could have impacts far beyond the state of Ohio...

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/2/14457/20383/75/703699

^Wow...it's a fairly obvious, yet profound statement.  Thanks for sharing that.

We have to remember that passenger trains are an abstract issue in Ohio. Most of the public and their legislators know little about them.

http://www.wcsmradio.com/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,print,0&cntnt01articleid=2123&cntnt01showtemplate=false&cntnt01returnid=15

 

Categories: Local News

      Date: Mar  3, 2009

    Title: OH Passenger Rail Ready to Pull Out of the Station

March 3, 2009

OH Passenger Rail Ready to Pull Out of the Station

 

Columbus, OH - Backers of a passenger rail system that would span Ohio say it's almost ready to pull out of the station, and only needs a financial push to get going. The Ohio Hub Project is a system of rail lines to connect urban areas of the Buckeye State with each other, and to national rail networks.

 

Jennifer Miller, conservation program coordinator for the Sierra Club's Ohio Chapter, says an advantage of the proposal is its use of existing tracks.

 

"Through partnerships with the railroad industry, the Ohio Hub is an economic means of extending passenger rail throughout the state while also benefiting Ohio industry, because we improve freight operations at the same time."

 

The estimated price tag for the first phase of the project is $250 million, to connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati. Critics have said the project is too expensive and are not convinced that the routes would generate enough revenue. Miller disagrees, saying there are both economic and environmental benefits to a statewide passenger rail system.

 

"The Ohio Hub is likely to produce a fuel savings of 9.4 million gallons that will benefit Ohio citizens financially and also reduce our emissions greatly."

 

Similar rail plans are moving forward in 36 states - and Ohio should use the momentum, says Miller, to transition to a 21st Century transportation system focused on moving people instead of cars and trucks.

 

"If our state is to remain competitive, we need to act. We should learn from our struggling auto industry - reluctance to modernize is at the heart of its economic woes, and that's one reason why Ohio is likely to take longer to bounce back."

 

When Ohio begins to spend money on the project, Miller explains, it would then qualify for 80 percent funding under the federal Passenger Rail Act, and also could receive dollars from the recently-passed federal stimulus package.

I guess the trick will be getting it past the Ohio Senate.

I was at the hearings before the House Finance Committee and the questions from some (not all) of the Repubican members are probably a good indication that the 3-C project is in for a battle in the GOP-controlled Senate.

 

But kudos to State Reps. Carney (Columbus), Uyvagi (Toledo) and Skindell (Cleveland) for providing some push back to the GOP questions about whether the public should subsidize passenger rail.  They all, in their own way, responded that all transportation systems require public support and none are supported solely with the $$$ of users. :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

If you’re looking for a quick & easy spot to send a message to your Ohio legislators, here is another way...

 

http://www.progressohio.org/page/speakout/passengerrail

 

The email is already written - you just enter your zip code etc. to have it automatically sent to the right Ohio House Rep & Senator.

 

Customizing your letter (including the subject line) will make it even more effective. Personal impact stuff is great.

 

Unlike our U.S. Senators & Reps, our Ohio legislators aren’t (yet) used to receiving hundreds of messages in their inboxes on a particular issue.  So these emails really can make a difference. Phone calls are great too.

 

And to give you an idea what passenger rail advocates are up against in the Ohio Senate, check out the quote from State Sen. Neihaus from Hamilton County.  If his comments don't get you motivated to e-mail or make a phone call, then what will?

 

Excerpt from Gongwer News Service - Tuesday, March 03, 2009

 

 

Ohio Senate President Pro Tem Tom Niehaus (R-New Richmond) said

Republicans would like someone to point out how the rail plan could pay

for itself.

 

"It's one thing to use federal stimulus money to build the

infrastructure. The question is how do you pay for it once you have it.

We're already in a serious financial situation of being able to pay for

the bills that we currently have," Sen. Niehaus told reporters.

 

"Now we're creating another program that we have to find operating

revenue for. We can't even pay for what we have today," he said.

 

Sen. Niehaus said the economic reality is that passenger rail does not

pay for itself. "It sounds wonderful, it's romantic, but economically,

it doesn't work," he said.

 

And the message is that Ohio WILL see a direct economic payback in excess of the subsidy provided. If it doesn't, Ohio will be the first in the nation to see this happen. That's unlikely considering the amount of travel in the 3-C Corridor, the high population density, the large number of Ohio households which lack cars (8.5 percent), Ohio's population that's 65 years+ (13% now, 20% in less than 20 years). You have to invest to create economic development. Ohio will also be able to tap federal funds for train operating costs. This will let the state reduce its costs of state employee travel by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars per year.

 

(KJP note: Consider that the state motor pool's costs last year were $12 million. Consider that more than 60 percent of the state's population is in the 3-C Corridor. Consider that a like amount of state employee travel is in the 3-C Corridor. Consider that if one-third of all travel on state business in the 3-C Corridor were by train, the state would save $1.8 million per year.)

Here's another little item I put together:

 

http://members.cox.net/corridorscampaign/Amtrak%20states%20table.pdf

 

The gist of it is, to use the first state on the list, California spends $76.6 million in operating subsidy per year so that California travelers can save $147.6 million. In other words, California travelers save $1.90 for every $1 of operating subsidy provided. That state also sees substantial amounts of new housing, business and other development around stations.

 

Travelers in states like Maine, Oklahoma, Texas and Wisconsin don't save as much money as the other states (primarily because the average distance traveled per trip was too short), but still I found economic development happening far in excess of the subsidy provided.

I know we need to contact as many state reps and sens as possible, but do you have a sense of who could be convinced, who definitely supports, and who is adamantly opposed. That would be helpful - even if it isn't on here.

Is Niehaus really that stupid!!!? So incapable of independent thought that all he can do is repeat mindless ideological drivel that can't be substantiated?

I know we need to contact as many state reps and sens as possible, but do you have a sense of who could be convinced, who definitely supports, and who is adamantly opposed. That would be helpful - even if it isn't on here.

 

I'll provide you with a list later this evening. Stay tuned...

LATE BREAKING NEWS!!!

 

While I'm pleased with the amendment, I am not pleased that the partisanship at the federal level seems to have found its way into our State House. The following is from All Aboard Ohio's secretary who is also the Ohio Environmental Council's legislative liaison......

____________________

 

Regarding Ohio Transportation Budget Bill (Ohio House Bill 2), Here is an update:

 

The Ohio House Finance and Appropriations Committee just voted (on a near

party-line vote) to amend the Ohio Transportation Budget Bill (Ohio House

Bill 2) to (apparently) provide for additional study of the 3-C corridor

by ODOT and the Ohio Rail Development Commission and to require approval

by the State Controlling Board before any construction or operation of

passenger rail service may proceed on the 3-C corridor.

 

This rail friendly amendment was offered by State Rep. Michael Skindell

(D-Lakewood) almost certainly with the knowledge and support of ODOT/ORDC

in an attempt to satisfy concerns raised by Ohio House Republicans that

there is insufficient information available about the 3-C corridor

proposal and that there is insufficient legislative oversight provided for

the General Assembly to have the final say on moving forward with 3-C

service.

 

There was much discussion before the vote on the amendment. Republicans

pushed for giving the General Assembly outright control over approving any

contracts to move forward with 3-C service. Democrats held firm that the

State Controlling Board, not the full General Assembly, is appropriate to

trust with this oversight power. (The State Controlling Board is a

bipartisan entity made up of lawmakers and of one representative of the

Governor's office that approves contracts proposed by state agencies. The

State Controlling Board, as Democrats pointed out, is empowered by current

Ohio law with oversight of contracts proposed by the Ohio Rail Development

Commission.

 

The amendment was approved 16-13 with Democrats voting YES and Republicans

-- with one exception -- voting NO. The lone Republican to vote YES for

the amendment was State Representative Ross McGregor (R-Springfield).

As a follow to the above, here are the key people who need to be contacted BEFORE next week. This may be a more serious fight than the House was:

 

See: http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/

 

Contact:

Senate President Bill Harris, R-19, of Ashland (he is on 3-C Corridor; his district includes Mansfield and the eastern part of Galion).

Senate President Pro-Tem Tom Niehaus, R-14, of New Richmond. His district covers five counties along the Ohio River from Clermont County east into Lawrence County.

Niehaus is a key person. He is managing the day-to-day activities of the Senate as President Harris is mostly inactive due to a broken leg.

 

PLEASE CONTACT ALL MEMBERS OF THE SENATE HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE:

(9 members: 6 Repubicans/3 Democrats)

 

 

* Tom Patton R-24 Strongsville (Chair)

* Steven Buehrer R-1 NW Ohio (Vice Chair)

* Gary Cates R-4 Butler

* Nina Turner D-25 Cleveland

* David Goodman R-3 Columbus (father is lobbyist for Building/const

  trades union)

* Joseph Schiavoni D-33 Youngstown

* Jason Wilson D-30 SE Ohio

* Tim Schaffer R-31 Lancaster (Somewhat moderate)

* Bob Gibbs R-22 Ashland (District is near 3-C, as it includes all of Medina County and northern Ashland County).

 

Legislators in BOLD are on the 3-C Corridor. All are important, especially if the northern Ohio route is included (Buehrer, Shiavoni). Patton, Goodman and Shaffer are of particular interest.

We are going to have a hell of a battle in the Senate. This will not be easy if Repubs continue to be an obstacle.

Thanks a bunch. Goodman is my senator. I will certainly write him a note.

And why should you all write? Here's a quote from Senator Tom Patton, chair of the transportation committee, at the first of a series of hearings on the transportation budget yesterday........

 

"I certainly think we should take a look at this, but as someone who has run for public office, and knocked on 27,000 doors, I never had one single person say, 'When are you going to have passenger rail?' As someone who serves in Cuyahoga County, I have not had a single person ever ask me."

 

And if you have written recently to Senator Patton about passenger rail, please tell me when or better yet, please pass along to me your letter and any correspondence you've received in return from him. My e-mail is [email protected]

Check KJP's post above on how to contact your State Senator and which Senators are key. The following story is from this morning's Columbus Dispatch and the "party line" vote indicates that the battle will be tough in the Senate.

 

GOP can't stop governor's rail idea

Republicans demand more oversight in bid to run trains between Ohio cities

Thursday,  March 5, 2009 3:29 AM

By James Nash

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Ohio House Republicans yesterday accused Gov. Ted Strickland of throwing them in the caboose of his plan to revive passenger rail service in major cities, but they were unable to muster enough votes to derail the plan.

 

The four-city rail idea -- which would bring passenger trains to Columbus for the first time in a generation -- is a key component of Strickland's plan to lessen Ohio's dependence on highways.

 

Strickland and rail proponents have run into skepticism and outright opposition from some Republicans, who have dismissed the idea as "romantic" in tough economic times.

 

 

 

http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/03/05/TRANSPORT.ART_ART_03-05-09_B1_VTD4FDT.html?sid=101

 

[email protected]