Ohio House is about pass a bill moving forward on light rail. Ticket price for trip from Cleveland to Columbus...$192.

 

edit: ^I overheard the above.

Seth, I'm not sure what you're talking about. No light rail service is being proposed over such a long route. There is an intercity service proposed which would offer one-way fares in the neighborhood of $20, if existing rail fares between Cleveland, Toledo and Chicago are any indication.

 

Let's keep the facts straight here. The General Assembly has a unique way of turning fallacies into alleged "truths."

Seth, I'm not sure what you're talking about. No light rail service is being proposed over such a long route. There is an intercity service proposed which would offer one-way fares in the neighborhood of $20, if existing rail fares between Cleveland, Toledo and Chicago are any indication.

 

Let's keep the facts straight here. The General Assembly has a unique way of turning fallacies into alleged "truths."

Thanks for clarifying. My info. was hearsay.  We'll see what develops.

Go back to the person who told you that and correct them, please. Combat hearsay with fact. Best weapon ever.

http://209.51.133.155/cms/index.php/news_releases/more/3_c_trains_can_net_millions_for_state_budget/

 

3-C trains can net millions for state budget

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — March 5, 2009

Contact:

Ken Prendergast

All Aboard Ohio Executive Director

(216) 288-4883

[email protected]

 

Ohio’s general fund could see millions of dollars in savings in the first year after the introduction of passenger rail service linking the state capital with Ohio’s other largest cities. That’s the finding of All Aboard Ohio, a nonprofit educational organization, which analyzed state employees’ expenditures and policies for travel.

 

See the analysis at:

http://members.cox.net/neotrans/3-C_state_business_travel.pdf

 

The benefit would be even greater if Ohio used a federal grant rather than state funding to support the operating costs of modern passenger trains in the Cleveland – Columbus – Dayton – Cincinnati (3-C) Corridor.

 

“Ohio is eligible to fully fund 3-C Corridor operating costs with federal dollars,” said All Aboard Ohio Executive Director Ken Prendergast. “Ohio can free up millions of dollars from the general fund that used to go for state employee travel expenses and instead use them for education, vocational training and other important programs. And with 3-C Corridor trains, more Ohioans who aren’t physically or financially able to drive can reach these educational, employment and related opportunities.”

 

This idea isn’t new. The State of Illinois has a reduced-rate Amtrak fare for intra-state train travel. Each time a state employee (including teachers and administrators at state universities) books the state-rate fare, $50 from the general fund is deposited into a passenger rail development fund.

 

Ohio spends more than $12 million per year to operate a State Motor Vehicle Pool, cars and vans used for state-related business travel around Ohio. Many more state employees are reimbursed for travel made in their own cars, Prendergast noted.

 

In All Aboard Ohio’s analysis, it found that one state employee traveling round-trip between Cleveland and Columbus cost the state $226. This didn’t include costs of overtime or parking. If that same employee took the train, if it were available, the state would save $184 in direct transportation costs and improved productivity.

 

If just 50 state employees took the train each day in the entire 3-C Corridor to conduct state business, the state could save $2.3 million per year. If 100 state employees took the train per day, the state could save $4.6 million annually. Should the state secure a federal grant to pay for 3-C passenger rail operations, the entirety of those savings would go back into the state’s general fund. It isn’t known how many employees are traveling per day in the 3-C Corridor but it is likely in the hundreds, Prendergast said.

 

“Not only is the train much less expensive than driving or even taking the bus, employees cannot do any work while they drive but are getting paid as if they are at work,” Prendergas said. “If train service was available, they could safely use telecommunications and work on a laptop computer. Routinely, state employees tell us they must use overtime to get caught up on work which was set aside while they were driving to and from meetings. This isn’t nostalgia or romance. It’s smart public finance.”

 

END

Oakiehigh posted an article that had this. . .

 

"A 2004 study by Transportation Economics & Management Systems Inc. estimated that one-way rail fares between Cincinnati and Columbus would average $50. It would cost $95 one-way between Cincinnati and Cleveland, according to the study. Frequent rail users, students, senior citizens and weekend travelers would likely be offered lower fares."

 

Granted the study is from 5 years ago. If $20 is the price point, that would be sweet.

TEMS is good at many things. Applying the current Amtrak rail fare data to the 3-C Corridor isn't one of them.

^  Great release KJP!!!  :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

If the GOP members of the Senate don't want to save taxpayer dollars, then shame on them. :bang:

OakieHigh post an article that had this. . .

 

"A 2004 study by Transportation Economics & Management Systems Inc. estimated that one-way rail fares between Cincinnati and Columbus would average $50. It would cost $95 one-way between Cincinnati and Cleveland, according to the study. Frequent rail users, students, senior citizens and weekend travelers would likely be offered lower fares."

 

Granted the study is from 5 years ago. If $20 is the point, that would be sweet.

 

for comparison : lirr tickets from ny penn station to bridgehampton, long island (same distance as cinci-cols):

 

                                            On Board  Station/TVM  WebTicket 

Peak                                        $26.00      $21.00        $19.95

Off Peak                                  $20.00      $15.25        $14.49

Senior Citizen / Disabled                N/A          $10.50        $9.98

Monthly                                      N/A        $356.00      $348.88

Weekly                                      N/A        $113.50      $107.83

Ten Trip Peak                              N/A        $210.00      $199.50

Off Peak Ten Trip                        N/A        $129.75      $123.26

Ten Trip Senior/Disabled                N/A        $105.00        $99.75

 

 

Thanks Noozer.

 

Today the Ohio House of Representatives passed ODOT's two-year budget which, among things, would:

 

+ reestablish 3-C Corridor passenger train service;

+ establish a Division of Mulit-Modal Planning with ODOT to coordinate more efficient movement of people and freight by rail, public transit, maritime and other modes;

+ Clean up and replace public transit buses with cleaner, more fuel-efficient equipment.

^if we can't get the 3-C included in the Senate's bill, let's hope we can get it in conference committee...

 

Attention EVERY Ohioan on this list.  If you haven't contacted your state senator and asked them to support the 3-C corridor in ODOT's budget bill, please do so ASAP:

 

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

 

There's no good excuse for anyone on this list not doing so, unless you are somehow unable to get to a computer or phone. 

 

 

 

 

 

I just sent an email to my two Senators(Seitz and Kearney) asking for their support. Is it worth contacting House members? Looks like they already voted.

It's done in the House... concentrate on the Senate.

I don't mind "outing" some people here because at this point the Ohio Senate is lost. Here is why....

_________________

 

 

Here's what Senator Tom Patton had to say to Carol Caruso at the Greater Cleveland Partnership. My responses for Carol's interest were in italics. I'm attempting to schedule a meeting with Patton this weekend....

 

Here's a summary of his concerns:

In Tom's mind, the numbers just don't work.  According to the data that has been submitted to him, passenger rail would gain about 490,000 passengers annually (including weekends).  This translates to 1,358 per day and, more to the point, takes only 400-450 cars off the highways.  Not enough to justify the expense.

 

This isn't about taking cars off the road. It's about the economic payoff from the state's investment. In no state has the payoff been less than the state's investment and ongoing support. We didn't build highways to take the pressure off the railroads. We actually built them for strategic defense.

 

Tom does not like the subsidy that would be required to sustain this.  He understands that 14 other states have state--subsidized passenger rail, but his view is that these states are very different from Ohio.  Passenger rail in Ohio would not appeal to business riders -- getting from Parma (his town) to Columbus would require him to go to a drive/park site, stop in Berea, Mansfield, and Galion before reaching Columbus -- where he would then have to find a cab or rent a car to do his business. 

 

All but one state (New York) which supports Amtrak service has less population density than Ohio. So yes, he's right, they are not similar because they lack the ridership base Ohio has. He could board the train at Hopkins Airport, get work done on the way to Columbus (impossible to do while driving which wastes that 2+ hours), and yes, rent a car, take cabs, take buses or rent a Zip car by the hour. One day soon there may be a streetcar or light-rail line to get him around. Columbus cannot avoid having rail transit forever.

 

Sharing the track with freight trains concerns him a great deal.  Even though the passenger trains are capable of going up to 79 miles an hour (on a straight shot, no curves, no competing traffic), they would still have to slow down for each stop and could only go as fast as the freight train in front of them.

 

I don't understand why. Every other state-supported passenger rail service shares tracks with freight trains. Passenger trains can travel at up to 90 mph on tracks with competing traffic. Even Europe's and Japan's high-speed rail lines have curves and intermediate stops too -- Tom was fed baloney by someone and still appears to be chewing on it! Additional capacity to the rail corridors will be added to create fluid traffic flows and interactive traffic signals which force trains to slow if the engineer doesn't respond to the signal are now required by federal law on all rail lines which have passenger trains, hazardous waste shipments or both.

 

In running 4 political campaigns and knocking on thousands of doors, he has never once been asked about passenger rail.  It does not seem to him to be a constituent priority.

 

How many were asking for new highways??? But I'll bet many complained about high gas prices, access to jobs and other tangential transportation issues that rail can address. And if they weren't contacting him before, I know for a fact that people are contacting him now because I get CC'd on lots of e-mails to him.

 

If we are going to expand passenger rail, he would prefer to look into extending the metro rail systems that are already in place.  For example, in Cleveland, he would like to see our rail system available to suburbs further away from downtown than Shaker Heights (the end of the line now).  He likes the idea of passenger rail within cities, but not between cities.

 

Interesting. Wonder if he would still feel that way if he learned that public transportation's cost-recovery ratio is worse than Amtrak's. Public transportation covers only 10-40 percent of its costs from passenger fares; the rest is subsidy. Amtrak covers 50-80 percent of its costs from passenger fares.

 

If there were a demand for intra-city passenger rail, we would be seeing more folks travel between cities by bus today -- and that travel is low.  Additionally, he thinks the price ($95 one way from Parma to Cleveland) is too high,  A Greyhound today is half that cost.

 

This $95 fare was put in the Ohio Hub by a consultant that know little about Amtrak's fare structure. The actual Amtrak fare structures average about 14 cents per mile (or $20 one way from Cleveland to Columbus). In Michigan, Missouri and other states which sponsor passenger rail service, the Amtrak fare is just 10 cents per mile. Greyhound costs are typically 20-25 cents per mile, and yet Greyhound has to run extra buses to accommodate the demand.

 

In the grand scheme of transportation issues, he places this one fairly low in priorities the state should focus on.  He feels that other issues ODOT has on their plate right now are more important and would serve the state better.  He stated that he began this process with a completely open mind, but the facts just don't support this and the proponents have not made the case effectively.

 

And that's the real shame because the state can do some terrific things with 3-C Corridor trains. Our contentment with the highway as our sole legitimate transportation choice is Third World. We can and should do better. I wonder what his explanation to voters will be when gas prices go back up again when the economy goes back up again, and voters learn he thwarted an opportunity to provide a low-cost alternative paid for with 100 percent federal funds. He needs to listen, which is a proven means of learning.

I'm also hearing that highway contractors like Buckeye Excavation, George Palko and another Ohio Contractors Association member in Medina (can't remember the name) have been putting heat on Patton. Apparently having 98 percent of the state's transportation budget going to highways isn't enough for them!!

When is the State Senate scheduled to vote on the budget?

Not until the end of next week or more likely the following week (of March 17).

Knowing some of these guys, I hope they don't vote on 3/17. Sorry but I had to say it  :-D  :drunk:

I don't mind "outing" some people here because at this point the Ohio Senate is lost. Here is why....

_________________

 

 

Here's what Senator Tom Patton had to say to Carol Caruso at the Greater Cleveland Partnership. My responses for Carol's interest were in italics. I'm attempting to schedule a meeting with Patton this weekend....

 

Here's a summary of his concerns:

In Tom's mind, the numbers just don't work. According to the data that has been submitted to him, passenger rail would gain about 490,000 passengers annually (including weekends). This translates to 1,358 per day and, more to the point, takes only 400-450 cars off the highways. Not enough to justify the expense.

 

This isn't about taking cars off the road. It's about the economic payoff from the state's investment. In no state has the payoff been less than the state's investment and ongoing support. We didn't build highways to take the pressure off the railroads. We actually built them for strategic defense.

 

Tom does not like the subsidy that would be required to sustain this. He understands that 14 other states have state--subsidized passenger rail, but his view is that these states are very different from Ohio. Passenger rail in Ohio would not appeal to business riders -- getting from Parma (his town) to Columbus would require him to go to a drive/park site, stop in Berea, Mansfield, and Galion before reaching Columbus -- where he would then have to find a cab or rent a car to do his business.

 

All but one state (New York) which supports Amtrak service has less population density than Ohio. So yes, he's right, they are not similar because they lack the ridership base Ohio has. He could board the train at Hopkins Airport, get work done on the way to Columbus (impossible to do while driving which wastes that 2+ hours), and yes, rent a car, take cabs, take buses or rent a Zip car by the hour. One day soon there may be a streetcar or light-rail line to get him around. Columbus cannot avoid having rail transit forever.

 

Sharing the track with freight trains concerns him a great deal. Even though the passenger trains are capable of going up to 79 miles an hour (on a straight shot, no curves, no competing traffic), they would still have to slow down for each stop and could only go as fast as the freight train in front of them.

 

I don't understand why. Every other state-supported passenger rail service shares tracks with freight trains. Passenger trains can travel at up to 90 mph on tracks with competing traffic. Even Europe's and Japan's high-speed rail lines have curves and intermediate stops too -- Tom was fed baloney by someone and still appears to be chewing on it! Additional capacity to the rail corridors will be added to create fluid traffic flows and interactive traffic signals which force trains to slow if the engineer doesn't respond to the signal are now required by federal law on all rail lines which have passenger trains, hazardous waste shipments or both.

 

In running 4 political campaigns and knocking on thousands of doors, he has never once been asked about passenger rail. It does not seem to him to be a constituent priority.

 

How many were asking for new highways??? But I'll bet many complained about high gas prices, access to jobs and other tangential transportation issues that rail can address. And if they weren't contacting him before, I know for a fact that people are contacting him now because I get CC'd on lots of e-mails to him.

 

If we are going to expand passenger rail, he would prefer to look into extending the metro rail systems that are already in place. For example, in Cleveland, he would like to see our rail system available to suburbs further away from downtown than Shaker Heights (the end of the line now). He likes the idea of passenger rail within cities, but not between cities.

 

Interesting. Wonder if he would still feel that way if he learned that public transportation's cost-recovery ratio is worse than Amtrak's. Public transportation covers only 10-40 percent of its costs from passenger fares; the rest is subsidy. Amtrak covers 50-80 percent of its costs from passenger fares.

 

If there were a demand for intra-city passenger rail, we would be seeing more folks travel between cities by bus today -- and that travel is low. Additionally, he thinks the price ($95 one way from Parma to Cleveland) is too high, A Greyhound today is half that cost.

 

This $95 fare was put in the Ohio Hub by a consultant that know little about Amtrak's fare structure. The actual Amtrak fare structures average about 14 cents per mile (or $20 one way from Cleveland to Columbus). In Michigan, Missouri and other states which sponsor passenger rail service, the Amtrak fare is just 10 cents per mile. Greyhound costs are typically 20-25 cents per mile, and yet Greyhound has to run extra buses to accommodate the demand.

 

In the grand scheme of transportation issues, he places this one fairly low in priorities the state should focus on. He feels that other issues ODOT has on their plate right now are more important and would serve the state better. He stated that he began this process with a completely open mind, but the facts just don't support this and the proponents have not made the case effectively.

 

And that's the real shame because the state can do some terrific things with 3-C Corridor trains. Our contentment with the highway as our sole legitimate transportation choice is Third World. We can and should do better. I wonder what his explanation to voters will be when gas prices go back up again when the economy goes back up again, and voters learn he thwarted an opportunity to provide a low-cost alternative paid for with 100 percent federal funds. He needs to listen, which is a proven means of learning.

 

KJP, you should send that very summary to Senator Patton.

I have.

Here is my letter to the Senator:

 

Senator Patton,

 

I have reviewed your response to Carol Caruso of the Greater Cleveland Partnership on the topic of the 3-C Passenger Rail system, part of a larger idea of a state wide passenger rail system connecting both urban and rural  areas, and disagree strongly with your viewpoint.

As a recent Kent State University graduate living in Cleveland, I feel that your stance against creating transportation options for Ohio residents goes against this state’s goal of creating new economic opportunities and retaining younger constituents that value urban lifestyles and all that go along with it. 

Having traveled to Europe and witnessed its multi-modal transportation network and its thriving cities and suburbs, it is obvious that this network of inter-city and inner-city transport systems has assisted in retaining these strong urban cores.  It is also worth noting that when this state’s cities had a multi-modal network, they were successful economic engines.  When this network broke down due to an over government subsidized and unsustainable form of transportation (the automobile), core cities struggled, and it continues to this day.  A strong urban core creates a strong region, and strong regions create strong state economies.

I also question your point on when you have went door to door in your district, that you have never been asked about passenger rail.  How many asked you about the high costs of gasoline and what your solutions to this problem were?  How many expressed that their monthly income had been affected by this rise in prices?  How many were concerned about their children moving to more successful regions? 

Freeways and roads are tax payer subsidized infrastructure, they are not free to the public.  The argument that passenger rail does not pay for itself plays off of the ignorance of constituents on this topic and its relationship to how freeways are funded.  There are ongoing studies that talk about the economic benefits of passenger rail that I will not go into, but hope that you are aware of.  How is it possible that the rest of the world has successfully integrated passenger rail into their transit networks, yet in your opinion Ohio and the United States cannot?

I realize that you are not a representative for me or my city, but you are a representative of this State, and for the well being of my city (of which Strongsville is dependant) and State, I urge you to reconsider your stance against the 3-C Passenger Rail System.

Thank you for your time.

 

Better not to involve Carol Caruso. Please leave her out of it. I made a mistake by including her name in the above. This about Patton, not her.

Roads, bridges big winners

State House bill divvies up $2 billion of federal stimulus

Friday,  March 6, 2009 3:17 AM

By James Nash

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/03/06/copy/STIMULUS.ART_ART_03-06-09_B1_CFD4R6C.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

 

Ohio legislators carved up $2 billion in federal stimulus money yesterday, earmarking the majority for highway and bridge projects and assigning a watchdog to ensure that the money is spent properly.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation was the biggest beneficiary of the largesse, but the vast majority of its $1.1 billion would go toward traditional highway projects, not the passenger-rail project championed by Gov. Ted Strickland.

 

The trans-Ohio rail service got a big boost, however, when members of the state House voted mostly along party lines to approve ODOT's $7.6 billion budget for the next two years. The budget gives the go-ahead for studying the rail project, although it doesn't guarantee that the service will materialize.

 

 

 

 

 

"Change is difficult, but change must be embraced," Strickland told reporters yesterday. "And the fact is that I am unwilling to let Ohio be an island surrounded by other states that are pursuing expanded passenger-rail service and leave Ohio out of that essential transportation network."

 

 

 

ain't that the truth. glad to hear strickland spoke out so concisely and emphatically.

 

 

I think we should buy this book for the Ohio Senate Transportation Committee. We may have to read it to them, however......

 

Copies are on order...... :-D

Operators are standing by!

These Ohio Republicans are fighting to keep ohio the most backwards industrial state in the nation.

Yes, and at the rate we are going, we won't be "industrial" much longer, thanks to these idiots. :whip:

If I understand correctly what I was told yesterday, members of the Ohio Congressional delegation and even Amtrak can submit the request for stimulus funds for the 3-C.  If that's the case, we can still get this through by the 4/18/09 deadline. 

 

If that can happen, then it may be possible to put a positive spin on this:  We now know pretty clearly who the opposition is and what their arguments are (and their arguments are weak).  That gives us several months for groups like All Aboard Ohio to make the rounds in the state with a Mayor's letter and resolutions for city councils, chambers of commerce, etc.  Then, by the time Amtrak's study comes out in August, we'll have a thick stack of these letters and resolutions to give to the Ohio Senate. 

 

Let's get busy and gear up for the end run around these folks

 

 

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, much, is the fact that overall, the region's population is declining as is its economic significance. There are a lot of things that a region can do to say that it is forward thinking and business friendly but there are not many more things that say "WOW!" more than a major investment infrastructure. Other states, such as California, are talking HSPR and even committing funds to it. While it doesn't give many Republicans a warm and fuzzy, it appeals to the same demographics that elected our current administration.

 

We know that temporary tax incentives don't work (and long term tax incentives are counter productive). Nobody is going to get excited (except local politicians and some in the construction industry), about spending economic recovery funds to repair what we built 20 years ago, even if some of that is necessary. After all, much of that infrastructure was planned when gas was considerably less than 80 cents a gallon. Many of our politicians are not planning for an economy in which gasoline is perpetually above $4/gallon.

 

Moreover, regions where the population is growing may start to see a slowdown as the economy slows, fuel prices rise, and investment in roadways and airports no longer seems like a good idea.

 

If Ohio wants to attract national and international attention it needs a project of sufficient scope and scale that businesses and employees take notice. The 3-C corridor is just the kind of project that projects a forward-thinking and innovative approach to attracting investment to the state, especially when coupled to the other HSPR corridor to the North and the ports of Lake Erie and the Ohio River. The ability to cross the state, North to South and East to West, using HSPR, would be a huge differentiator when comparing Ohio to any other state.

 

 

 

 

Senator Seitz response asking him to support the 3-C Corridor. His issues sound familiar.

 

Dear Mr. xxxxxx,

 

Thanks for your email. The Ohio Hub is indeed an intriguing

issue. As a legislator who regularly travels by car from Cincinnati to

Columbus, I would probably be very interested in a good rail connection

as it would free up my time to do work while traveling. Among the issues

(besides cost) that we will have to examine on this proposal are whether

the passenger rail connection would interfere with existing freight

train lines and where the terminus point(s) would be in each of the

cities. If the terminus is not at the right place (for example, if the

Columbus terminus was at the airport) then it may not work since rail

travelers would have to spend extra to get downtown, which would limit

the attractiveness (and timeliness) of the rail alternative.

 

Sincerely,

 

William J. Seitz

 

One question that I have had that maybe KJP can answer is why the advocates for HSPR don't partner with the freight lines to suggest mixed use rights-of-way (with separate track, throughout or, perhaps, at intervals).  I don't see (or desire to see) freight being able to travel at 350km/hr but the demands of HSR in terms of curve radius and such would likely be of benefit to the freight lines as well.

I'm glad to see that Seitz is open minded.  It appears he has not read the Ohio Hub plan, though  There will be a downtown station in Columbus.

seanmcl ... the Ohio Hub plan is predicated on mix-use corridors.  The railroads already own all but one of the planned Hub corridor.... that one being the state-owned "Panhandle Line" between Columbus & Pittsburgh.  Both the CSX and Norfolk Southern railroads, which own & operate the remaining 6 corridors, have supported the planning process from the beginning and have even provdied letters of support endorsing putting the plan into environmental review.

 

The cooperation of the railroads is based on the fact that improvements to the corridors necessary to run 110-MPH passenger trains will also increase capacity and flow for the freight railroads.

seanmcl ... the Ohio Hub plan is predicated on mix-use corridors. The railroads already own all but one of the planned Hub corridor.... that one being the state-owned "Panhandle Line" between Columbus & Pittsburgh. Both the CSX and Norfolk Southern railroads, which own & operate the remaining 6 corridors, have supported the planning process from the beginning and have even provdied letters of support endorsing putting the plan into environmental review.

 

Letters of support are all well and good, but is there enough in it for them to actually lobby? Years ago, I was involved in a competitive project in West Virginia. The Federal funding agency had planned eight demonstration projects across the country at $2 million, apiece. I was hired to write the grant application for West Virginia. I wrote a very good proposal which, IMHO, almost guaranteed that West Virginia would be one of the recipients, but when I was asked what else could be done to ensure success, I said "lobby Byrd and Rockefeller and tell them how good this would be for West Virginia". They did and the result was that West Virginia received the entire $16 million, plus $2 million tacked on.

 

Letters of support are good but nothing talks like money. Money from business is especially interesting to Republicans who seem to be continuously driven by ideology rather than rationality.

 

Please excuse me because I am coming into this discussion late, but have CSX and Norfolk and Southern gone so far as to lobby for this?

No, but as I said, they are supportive.  They have also told the ORDC not to count them out as operators.

Normally, this would be the biggest passenger rail news in Ohio. Instead, I almost overlooked it!

 

http://www.chroniclet.com/2009/03/06/federal-stimulus-money-going-to-depot-project_122/

 

March 6, 2009

Federal stimulus money going to depot project

Brad Dicken | The Chronicle-Telegram

 

ELYRIA — Lorain County will receive about $3.6 million in federal stimulus money to fund capital improvements for mass-transit projects.

 

That means the county will speed up its efforts to renovate the old New York Central Railroad Station in Elyria, county Administrator Jim Cordes said Thursday.

 

The county approved spending about $3.2 million in other federal funding on the second phase of the renovation of the former train depot in October, but Cordes said that the extra money will allow the county to move forward with the third phase this year as well.

 

The cost of the third phase is expected to be about $1.2 million. A fourth phase is expected to cost $1.4 million.

........

Thomas Suddes:

Statehouse Democrats are railroading a plan around the Constitution

Sunday,  March 8, 2009 4:14 AM

By THOMAS SUDDES

 

Some Statehouse Democrats don't seem to like democracy: It's messy and unpredictable. So on Thursday, the Democrat-led House signaled it wants to end-run the Republican-led Senate by handing off some power over Ohio's purse to the Controlling Board, which also happens to be run by Democrats.

 

But in November, voters elected a Democratic House and a Republican Senate to safeguard Ohio's cashbox. Object: A checkmate, or something close to it, over state spending. Now, instead of a checkmate, Democrats want a blank check.

 

At issue: A proposed passenger railroad to connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati, plus, maybe, a Columbus-Toledo spur. Ohio might get federal funds to build the railroad, and the concept has trackside appeal, though how passenger fares alone could pay for operations is the question of the day. If it were easy, Amtrak would have done it years ago.

 

 

Thomas Suddes is a former legislative reporter with The Plain Dealer in Cleveland and writes from Ohio University.

 

[email protected]

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2009/03/08/sudd08.ART_ART_03-08-09_G5_FHD51QG.html?sid=101

At issue: A proposed passenger railroad to connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati, plus, maybe, a Columbus-Toledo spur. Ohio might get federal funds to build the railroad, and the concept has trackside appeal, though how passenger fares alone could pay for operations is the question of the day. If it were easy, Amtrak would have done it years ago.

 

Well worn arguments. It used to be that journalists did research before printing stories. As late as last week the Washington Post omsbudsman published what could only be viewed as a correction to a claim made by George Will. But these days newspapers seem less informed than many bloggers.

 

But if the price is right, and the trade-offs so smart, you have to wonder why Democrats want to bypass half the legislature so a seven-person rump they control gets to make that call. To ask the question is to answer it.

 

Apparently he didn't consider the fact that, based upon most of the public statements reported in the media, many Republicans are:

 

1. Uninformed as to the studies demonstrating the economic benefits of HSR.

2. Driven by ideology rather than rationality.

3. Bent on making any attempts by Democrats to stimulate the economy failures so as to have a shot at making some inroads in the midterm and 2012 elections.

 

If T. Boone Pickens is right, and oil prices will climb to between $200 and $300/barrel in the future, we're all going to regret that we didn't put a priority on alternative modes of transportation, earlier.

 

Republicans are playing the fear angle. "This is socialism." "The government is picking your pockets." Instead of coming up with ideas they are content to be the party of opposition. I think that they are likely to fail and I think that this will lead to bulletproof majorities in 2010 or 2012, but we'll have wasted too much time by then.

 

At issue: A proposed passenger railroad to connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati, plus, maybe, a Columbus-Toledo spur. Ohio might get federal funds to build the railroad, and the concept has trackside appeal, though how passenger fares alone could pay for operations is the question of the day. If it were easy, Amtrak would have done it years ago.

 

Well worn arguments. It used to be that journalists did research before printing stories. As late as last week the Washington Post omsbudsman published what could only be viewed as a correction to a claim made by George Will. But these days newspapers seem less informed than many bloggers.

 

But if the price is right, and the trade-offs so smart, you have to wonder why Democrats want to bypass half the legislature so a seven-person rump they control gets to make that call. To ask the question is to answer it.

 

Apparently he didn't consider the fact that, based upon most of the public statements reported in the media, many Republicans are:

 

1. Uninformed as to the studies demonstrating the economic benefits of HSR.

2. Driven by ideology rather than rationality.

3. Bent on making any attempts by Democrats to stimulate the economy failures so as to have a shot at making some inroads in the midterm and 2012 elections.

 

If T. Boone Pickens is right, and oil prices will climb to between $200 and $300/barrel in the future, we're all going to regret that we didn't put a priority on alternative modes of transportation, earlier.

 

Republicans are playing the fear angle. "This is socialism." "The government is picking your pockets." Instead of coming up with ideas they are content to be the party of opposition. I think that they are likely to fail and I think that this will lead to bulletproof majorities in 2010 or 2012, but we'll have wasted too much time by then.

 

 

If those in charge try to bypass proper legislative process to get this done, I won't be able to support it.

 

I would love to see rail, but let's be reasonable here.  There are plenty of legitimate concerns that frankly can't be answered until the rail is either built or isn't built.  No matter what, some aspects will be a gamble.  Democrats are trying to use the current economic situation to spend and take these chances, Republicans are trying to play it safe and make sure the money is gambled the best way possible.  Debate usually lends to compromise which is generally the best solution. 

 

If you really want "bulletproof majorities" in a legislative body, I fear for you. 

If those in charge try to bypass proper legislative process to get this done, I won't be able to support it.

 

I don't disagree with that and I wasn't arguing whether what the Democrats want to do is constitutional. What I was responding to is the fact that there are other interpretions of what the Republicans are doing, and based upon the public comments, they are not all informed. The fact is that Ohio already has the ORDC, which is a state-sponsored agency, yet many choose to ignore the ORDCs findings. Why? Ideology might be one reason.

 

I would love to see rail, but let's be reasonable here.  There are plenty of legitimate concerns that frankly can't be answered until the rail is either built or isn't built.  No matter what, some aspects will be a gamble.

 

True. And did the Interstate Highway system ever pay for itself in terms of usage fees? The nation's first investment in rail, granting rights of way, allowed for one of the greatest periods of economic growth in our history. Were there studies done, then?

 

Democrats are trying to use the current economic situation to spend and take these chances, Republicans are trying to play it safe and make sure the money is gambled the best way possible.  Debate usually lends to compromise which is generally the best solution.

 

I wish that I could believe this. I agree that Dems are using the crisis as a means to effect changes. I'm not convinced that this is bad. I am also not convinced that the Republicans are trying to be responsible, given that most of the statements coming from them are more rhetoric than informed.

 

If you really want "bulletproof majorities" in a legislative body, I fear for you. 

 

What I want is a democratically elected representative government. If the people want a bulletproof majority, who are you to question it? If the people decide that their current representatives are obstructionists rather than creative and want to replace them,  they have a chance at the polls. If they want more of the same, they can vote for this as well.

 

The Republicans have espoused nothing except lower taxes. No economist in the world believes that this is sufficient for the simple reason that there is so much debt that any take home money will be spent paying that down (in other words, paying for what we already bought).

 

That is a mantra, not a solution.

The Plain Dealer  ran this too:

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/thomas_suddes/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1236418411306130.xml&coll=2

 

His concerns about the Controlling Board aside, judging by some of his comments about the 3-C/Ohio Hub, it's apparent he really hasn't done his homework.  He should start by reading the Ohio Hub Study and the 2007 Economic Impact Analysis. 

 

Groups like All Aboard Ohio and others have their work cut out for them educating the press and politicians about the plan. 

 

Republicans are trying to play it safe and make sure the money is gambled the best way possible.

 

No. Today's Ohio Republicans are not trying to play it safe to make sure money is gambles the best way possible. The opposition is based on ideology and misinformation. Most of the comments from Ohio House Republicans are questioning the operating subsidy -- missing the point that highways, airlines, trucking industry, and all other forms of transportation also are subsidized. We all know these same people would unquestioningly throw billions at new highway lanes even though that pavement will do less for Ohio's economy than a 3-C rail line. 3-C is a much surer bet and much less cost. A couple hundred million to link Ohio's three largest cities is maybe what it would cost to rebuild a single new urban highway interchange.

 

At issue: A proposed passenger railroad to connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati, plus, maybe, a Columbus-Toledo spur. Ohio might get federal funds to build the railroad, and the concept has trackside appeal, though how passenger fares alone could pay for operations is the question of the day. If it were easy, Amtrak would have done it years ago.

 

This seems an absurd statement.  My understanding is Amtrak, when it took over failing passenger routes from the privately owned RRs nearly 40 years ago, focused on bank-rolling a relative few long-distant routes and, more or less, tasked the States to subsidize intra-state and regional routes (with a major exception being, of course, the profitable, plane-competitive Northeast Corridor, where Amtrak literally purchased the entire route for it's high-speed passenger trains while, at the same time, renting track rights to regional commuter systems and freight).  So it seems, when Ohio failed to step up to the plate to fund 3-C's as neighbor states did for their similar routes, Amtrak pulled the plug.  Suddes clearly has right-leaning biases.

 

That said, the Dems may indeed be on the road to totally futzing this up.  If the Suddes of the world have their say, the Dems may accomplish what the cavemen Republicans can't do for themselves: make the party look good by actually making Repubs apper the victims in this fight.  One reason Ohio is in such a mess is that ALL politicians in this State are F'ck ups: Republicans are reactionary, scaremongering, troglodytes while Dems are a bunch of squabbling, incompetent doofuses (would that be doofi?) who can't get any major project done.  Cleveland has for decades been run into the ground by boob Dems; ditto for the State by Republicans.  Simplistic?  To a degree, but there's truth in it.  Just look at Cleveland's (Cuyahoga County based) commissioners, dominated by Dems seemingly forever; a group that once murdered a popular voted-for subway decades ago and, now, can't get their thumbs out of their collected arses to even decide where to build a brand new HQ which they decided to do nearly 5 years ago...

 

I understand Dem frustration on 3-C's to a degree:  I figure they believe that any Republican "compromise" means some kind of stall tactic(ie-- let's study this thing again and again; aka: paralysis by analysis) and, from what I'm gathering from Obama Stimulus $$ we're in an atmosphere of: if you snooze, you lose...  So maybe Dems feel that doing this the RIGHT way and embarrassing Repubs may, the long run, kill the end game which is getting 3-Cs up & running...

 

... after all, Ohio Republicans seem un-embarrasable.  Just ask Jean Schmidt or John Boehner.

 

Here is an Akron Beacon Journal editorial, which is a newspapers' statement corporate policy, on 3-C Corridor....

 

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/opinions/40914387.html

 

Waiting at the station

Ohio should take a hard look at passenger rail service, and then move quickly if the evidence supports the project

 

Published on Sunday, Mar 08, 2009

 

 

Ted Strickland wants to reconnect Ohio's ''3C Corridor,'' Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland, with passenger rail service, with a stop in Dayton. The governor's worthy priority is contained in a $7.5 billion transportation bill moving through the legislature. Republicans aren't on board.

..........

Can someone who subscribes to Crain's post the 3-C editorial from today's paper? I'm told the gist of it was "3-C is a great idea but not now." It's not online yet.

 

I guess they don't realize that this 100 percent federal funding can't go to anything else other than rail. So if we don't use it to invest in our economy, some other state will invest it in theirs.

I guess they don't realize that this 100 percent federal funding can't go to anything else other than rail. So if we don't use it to invest in our economy, some other state will invest it in theirs.

 

My read of it is that they, like many people, are worried about the operating costs, not the construction costs. What they are missing is the overall economic benefit and, instead, question whether ridership will pay for the cost of operations. Funny that nobody thinks of this when describing the roadways or the Federal aviation system.

 

They also label it a non-essential project. Funny that they should say this when T. Boone Pickens says he is bullish on oil because he expects it to hit $300/barrel by 2020 (read: $14/gallon for gas). I guess it'll become an essential project  once people can no longer afford to drive.

 

I'm especially upset that a business publication should be so short-sighted, especially since in the same issue they discuss the fact that Arcelor-Mittal will be suspending production at its Cleveland plant, idling about 1,000 people, due to the slump in the demand for steel.

 

Gee, what kind of infrastructure projects might help to increase the demand for domestic steel?

 

Finally, there was an article in today's Washington Post which stated that Virginia lost $25 million in buying power by delaying a vote on transportation appropriations from late fall to early spring. That is about 8% of the total that was budgeted. [Note: Should have mentioned that noozer posted the same information in another forum, earlier.]

 

Perhaps the legislature should consider the fact that if they wait long enough, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy that "we can't afford it!"

 

 

VERY well said!! Please send that to Crain's as a letter to the editor!

Watch, man

4:30 am, March 9, 2009

 

Every few years, it seems someone revisits the idea of creating a Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati rail corridor to link Ohio's three largest cities with passenger train service. This time, the “someone” who's pushing this concept is Gov. Ted Strickland, who's eager to tap into an $8 billion pot of Obama stimulus money earmarked for rail projects.

 

More at:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20090309/FREE/303099942