>In Ohio, there's nothing but wide open spaces and interstate highway for much of the route between the three “C” cities — hardly prime conditions for supporting passenger rail.

 

Actually Ohio is the most densely populated inland state.  If not for the southeast part of the state, it would rank even higher.

How do these naysayers not consider the disadvantage Ohio will face as surrounding states develop new or enhanced passenger rail while we stand still, as Stickland pointed out. It's like they think Ohio exists in isolation rather that seeing it as a key player in a rail network connecting the east coast to Chicago.

Ohio has had blinders on for a long time. Mark Twain once said if the world ended tomorrow, Cincinnati wouldn't find out about it for 10 years. He could have been referring to all of Ohio.

 

Don't just vent here. Copy and paste those words into letters/e-mails and send them to Ohio Senator Tom Patton, Crain's or whomever!

Also keep in mind that this isn't the East Coast. There, rail lines run through densely populated towns along the routes to New York and Washington, D.C., and make commuter trains the preferred choice of people going to and from their jobs. In Ohio, there's nothing but wide open spaces and interstate highway for much of the route between the three “C” cities — hardly prime conditions for supporting passenger rail.

 

This is, perhaps, the dumbest statement that has ever been made regarding passenger rail. I lived in New Jersey and worked in New York, 50 miles away. The commuter and intercity trains made that possible. The splinter communities that lined the Northeast Corridor existed because of of the rail. Anyone who knew Washington, DC, before and after the Metro knows that the explosive growth of Montgomery County followed the opening of the Shady Grove and Silver Spring Metro Stations.

 

And anyone who knows the history of Silver Spring, which is the second largest municipality in Maryland after Baltimore, knows that its first Renaissance occurred as a result of the Washington Trolley Service, followed by the B&O. In 1978, the Metro became responsible for the rebirth of Silver Spring along with MARC.  The old train station was rennovated between 2000 and 2002 (though passenger boarding occurs about 1/4 mile away).

 

The Intercounty Connector, a roadway which links the Montgomery County communities in an East-West line has been roundly criticized as disruptive to communities, environmentally unsound, inadequate in terms of traffic volumes, and unnecessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. If Ohio were a nation, it would be the 14th most dense nation on the planet.... more dense than France (15th) which supports one of the most sophisticated high-speed rail systems in the world.

 

2. Approximately 5.6-million Ohioans live within 15 miles of the 3-C Corridor... yeah, not much of a passenger base...or so it would seem to Crain's.

 

3.  The car beats a train? (1) Has the editor been living in the same universe as those of us that paid $4.00 a gallon less than a year ago and face gasoline prices re-approaching $2.00 per gallon now?  Does this editor consider as well the costs of parking and their own lost time and productivity driving a car?

 

4. The car beats a train? (2) Does this editor understand that even under a modest 3-C start-up, it will be same day travel and with a mid-day train as well?

 

I am very glad I do not waste MY $$$$ on a subscription to Crain's Cleveland Business.

 

 

I said once before Crain's was conservative and anti-transit (after they actually applauded the death of Cleveland's Dual-Hub subway project as wasteful), and was criticized... Let there, from here forward, be no doubt.

1. If Ohio were a nation, it would be the 14th most dense nation on the planet.... more dense than France (15th) which supports one of the most sophisticated high-speed rail systems in the world.

 

2. Approximately 5.6-million Ohioans live within 15 miles of the 3-C Corridor... yeah, not much of a passenger base...or so it would seem to Crain's.

 

3. The car beats a train? (1) Has the editor been living in the same universe as those of us that paid $4.00 a gallon less than a year ago and face gasoline prices re-approaching $2.00 per gallon now? Does this editor consider as well the costs of parking and their own lost time and productivity driving a car?

 

4. The car beats a train? (2) Does this editor understand that even under a modest 3-C start-up, it will be same day travel and with a mid-day train as well?

 

I am very glad I do not waste MY $$$$ on a subscription to Crain's Cleveland Business.

 

 

 

Here! Here!! Well put!!

Tell them. Don't tell us. We all waste too many keystrokes on convincing ourselves that we're right. Tell them.

Yes, KJP, we need to stop talking to ourselves and start talking to these misinformed types. 

 

Here's yet another opportunity help.  Below is a resolution of support for the 3-C/Ohio Hub.   

 

It needs to be distributed far and wide to city councils, chambers of commerce, colleges/universities, civic organizations, trade associations, non-profits, etc.  I would think that some organizations may want to add a WHEREAS or two to add their own twist .  That's fine.  If everyone on this list sent it to just one city council, or university or other organization, it would be a huge help.

 

All Aboard Ohio needs to compile copies of this resolution, so once passed, copies of should be sent to:

 

All Aboard Ohio 309 South 4th Street, Suite 304,

Columbus, OH 43215

 

A RESOLUTION:

 

        To urge the Legislature of the State of Ohio to support the development of the

  Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati (3-C) passenger rail corridor as a step toward the

  Ohio Hub plan.

 

  BE IT RESOLVED BY  _______________________________:

 

        WHEREAS, The Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) and the Ohio

  Department of Transportation have completed an analysis of constructing and operating

  an intercity and interstate passenger rail system serving Ohio and the Midwest, known

  as the Ohio Hub; and

 

        WHEREAS, State law requires that the Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati

  Corridor (hereinafter referred to as the 3-C Corridor) be the first passenger rail corridor

  to be developed, it is the first step toward the Ohio Hub plan which will connect all of

  Ohio's major cities with each other and with surrounding states; and

 

        WHEREAS, The Economic Impact Analysis of the Ohio Hub completed by the Ohio

  Rail Development Commission  concludes that construction and operation of the rail

  system will create thousands of jobs and a significant economic stimulus that will exceed

  the cost of construction and operation of the system, the economic benefits justify the

  investment; and

 

          WHEREAS, Passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the federal

  stimulus bill) presents an unprecedented one-time opportunity to invest hundreds of

  millions of federal dollars in Ohio's rail infrastructure, without the need for a state match;

  and

 

        WHEREAS, in 2008, the Congress of the United States passed the Passenger Rail

  Investment and Improvement Act that specifies an 80% federal construction match

  putting rail projects on the same cost sharing basis as other modes of transportation; and

 

        WHEREAS, the statewide "Tracking Ohio Poll" completed in 2001 (prior to 9/11)

  shows that 80% of Ohioans support passenger rail development in the state; and

 

        WHEREAS, Ohio and the nation are faced with an array of urgent economic,

  energy, environmental, and mobility challenges that require bold, effective action be

  taken to implement strategic and essential investments in our rail system; and

 

        WHEREAS,  Fourteen other states have successfully developed passenger corridors,

  and of those 14 states, 13 of them have lower population density than Ohio, in none of

  the 14 states has the economic payoff been less than the construction and operating

  support; and. 

 

          WHEREAS, Ohio has over 100 companies that supply products and services to the

  rail industry that will benefit from the construction and ongoing maintenance of the

  system; and

 

          WHEREAS, Ohio's general fund would see a net savings of $2.3 million to $4.6

  million per year from a small portion of state employees taking the train across the state

  rather than driving; and

 

          WHEREAS, The Census shows 8.5% of Ohio households lack cars and 34% of

  households have just one car, that  Ohio's population 65 years and old is 13% of the

  total, and will rise to 20% in 20 years, passenger rail is an important and necessary

  option for maintaining the mobility of Ohio's citizens.

 

          WHEREAS, Business travelers can get work done on the train, including with

  wireless internet, and save time, the Ohio Hub will increase the productivity and

  competitiveness of Ohio's workforce; and

 

            WHEREAS, the Ohio Hub will ultimately have efficient intermodal connections

  with several airports, both within and without the State of Ohio, that will increase Ohio's

  global competitiveness, therefore be it resolved,

 

          BE IT RESOLVED, That we, ___________________________ ask the General

  Assembly of Ohio support the Ohio Department of Transportation's request for a

  legislative authorization to develop passenger rail service linking cities in Ohio's 3-C

  Corridor (Cleveland, Galion, Columbus, Springfield, Riverside, Dayton, Middletown,

  Sharonville and Cincinnati).

 

          BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we call on members of the Ohio General

  Assembly and the Ohio Congressional Delegation to support ODOT's request for said

  authorization.

 

          BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we direct copies of this resolution be sent to the

  Ohio Senate Leadership, all members of the Ohio Senate Transportation Committee, to

  all members of the Ohio Congressional Delegation as well as to ODOT Director Jolene

  Molitoris, Ohio Rail Development Commission Director Matt Dietrich, and to print and

  broadcast news media serving our community.

Tell them. Don't tell us. We all waste too many keystrokes on convincing ourselves that we're right. Tell them.

 

I've already written my Senators and Congressmen (Canton, OH), as well as the editor of Crains. The problem that I see (as a Cantonian), is that none of the HSR plans address the Akron-Canton population, except as a "potential" future route from Cleveland to Coshocton or via commuter rail to Cleveland. If the future Cleveland-Pittsburgh route is chosen through Youngstown, which makes sense, then Alliance would be out as well. That leaves a major population center as an island.

 

That doesn't alter my enthusiasm in any way, but I can see where some communities may not be all that excited about that. Unless, of course, the project could, in some way, be tied to manufacturing in these cities.

 

Cincinnati supports 3-C passenger rail

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2009/03/cincinnati-supports-3-c-passenger-rail.html

 

Cincinnati City Council has passed a resolution of support for Amtrak intercity passenger rail connecting the City with Dayton, Columbus, and Cleveland, also known as the 3-C Corridor.

 

The resolution also requests that Cincinnati should be included in any initial service, likely a connection between Cincinnati and Columbus.

 

Councilmember Chris Monzel cast the lone dissenting vote.

 

The Ohio Rail Development Coalition and Amtrak are currently anayzing ridership projections and operating costs, and estimates are that the first trains could run somewhere in the state as soon as the end of next year.

...........

Also, Cleveland City Council and the Delaware City Council both passed 3-C Corridor resolutions last night.

Probably the most well-researched article I've seen yet on the 3-C debate. Glad to see at least one reporter in Ohio knows how to seek truth rather than just be a stenographer....

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2009/03/columbus_all_aboard_please.html

 

Ohio's passenger rail debate: Funding and philosophical concerns at the core of the battle

Posted by Aaron Marshall/Plain Dealer Bureau March 09, 2009 18:13PM

 

Columbus — All aboard! Please watch your step as you climb on for a trip to the Ohio Senate -- the next stop in the Ohio legislature's great passenger train debate.

 

That could have been the cry as the "3C Corridor" plan to bring passenger rail linking Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati emerged somewhat battered and bruised, but still intact after a partisan donnybrook in the Ohio House last week.

 

.....

 

Hard and fast data for Ohio's train proposal may be months away, but Illinois -- which has a similar population density to Ohio -- paid $12 million a year in operating costs to its Amtrak regional services until 2006 when the state's four regional rail lines were greatly expanded.

 

George Weber, bureau chief for Illinois state's bureau of railroads, estimated that since adding seven state-sponsored trains a day to the four that were running, the state is seeing about 10 to 15 percent more riders per train.

 

"When you start increasing the frequency, you definitely begin to see the ridership curve start to rise," he said.

 

Weber said the state subsidy of the four rail lines rose to $28 million a year, but could dip this year depending on the cost of fuel. Unlike in Ohio, the Illinois rail line has lots of friends in the state capital.

 

"It's been a very popular program among our state lawmakers," Weber said. "They see that people wanted to see this created and are interested in it being expanded."

Progress Ohio has developed a straightforward online email application that

takes your voting address, fills in the appropriate names, and provides sample

text in support of passenger rail and the Ohio Hub plan. You can edit the text

or send in the form email in support of passenger rail.

 

Send in your comments today:

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

 

Thank you for letting your support be heard!

 

Visit Ohio Passenger Rail at: http://ohiopassengerrail.ning.com

 

I received a very considerate response from Thomas Suddes to an e-mail in which I had argued against many of the points that he had made in his opinion piece on railroading the Ohio Constitution. For what it is worth, he acknowledged that he agreed with most of my points but that his argument was against the way that the Democrats proposed to avoid involving the legislature in the final approval process.

 

It is unfortunate that in his anger against this legislative maneuver, he felt it necessary to regurgitate the same well-worn (and disproved) arguments that we are hearing from our uninformed legislators. It is unfortunate when rhetoric trumps fact, especially when the rhetoric is used to inflame people's biases.

 

Well done seanmcl !

 

Thanks!

 

KJP/Anyone:

 

Is there any association between All Aboard Ohio and the OneRail Coalition?

 

 

I love the argument that the car has always been the preferred method of transportation in Ohio. Pray tell, how many methods of transportation are there in Ohio? If one wants to go from Cincinnati to Cleveland, how many options does one have? Of course the car is going to be more preferable than the train when there are no passenger trains.

 

If I'm stranded in the desert and brocolli is the only food I have to survive, brocolli is going to be my preferred choice and I hate brocolli...

Just as a comparison. The Interstate Defense Highway Act of 1956 authorized $27 billion for 40,000 miles of highway. In 2007, adjusting for inflation and using the CPI-U-X1 series numbers as a denominator, that amount would be $1.9 trillion (actual estimates of the cost in adjusted dollars are closed to $505 billion in 2006). And that doesn't include the billions in additional roads, beltways, spurs, etc., which have been built over the years.

 

In 2002, the GAO estimated that the annual cost to maintain the Interstate Highway System (alone) would be $17.3 billion (about $21 billion, today). The 46,000 miles of Interstate which existed in 2000 included 209,655 lane miles which was 2.5 percent of the estimated total lane miles in the US (although it is not fair to extrapolate Interstate maintenance costs to the entire road network, it doesn't take much to understand that upkeep of our entire national road network is considerably more expensive than $21 billion).

 

The alternative, which is what we have been doing, is to ignore maintenance until it becomes a problem. Certainly, the costs are not sustainable.

 

Nor do our current politicians appear to understand how significant and misguided was the oppressive regulation of the railroads couple with unregulated subsidization of road construction by the taxpayer. Ironic that the Republicans opposed to investment in rail are essentially in favor of public sector subsidization of a competitor.

 

In contrast, the roughly $8 billion approved for transportation projects, including HSR, would amount to only $1.4 billion in 1956.

 

Using CBO projections for the next 10 years, if it would take $3 billion to build the Ohio Hub, today, and we waited until 2018 (and that is assuming that gasoline prices are tagged to inflation, which we know that they are not), our $3 billion would be worth $600 million less in terms of purchasing power or 80% of its current value, and that is being optimistic.

 

Even a delay of one year would increase the cost by a minimum of $65 million, based upon CBO projections.

 

 

March 10, 2009

A penny (as in “Penny wise, pound foolish”) on the tracks

 

One of the things I’ve liked about being an advocate for smart growth and alternative transportation is that these are important goals that can be bipartisan or, even better, non-partisan.

 

In general, I’ve felt that most of the proponents of rail and transit and farmland preservation and good land-use policy tend to be Democrats, with a good number of Republican supporters helping to lead the charge. The biggest opposition to these issues tends to come from the Republican side, but the vast majority of Democrats have been silent, which is almost as bad. Likewise, there is a growing number of Republicans taking big roles in environmental issues.

 

The former state director and current co-director of Greater Ohio, the statewide Smart Growth advocacy organization, was a Republican legislator for eight years. The new director of the Ohio League of Conservation Voters also is a former Republican legislator.

 

But their fellow Republicans in the current General Assembly are giving their party a bad name when it comes to green transportation for the future.

 

Prospects for revival of passenger trains among Ohio’s largest cities are threatened by Republican opposition at a rare time when significant federal help is available. ...

 

...

 

http://bwilli910.wordpress.com/

I've already written my Senators and Congressmen (Canton, OH), as well as the editor of Crains. The problem that I ee (as a Cantonian), is that none of the HSR plans address the Akron-Canton population, except as a "potential" future route from Cleveland to Coshocton or via commuter rail to Cleveland. If the future Cleveland-Pittsburgh route is chosen through Youngstown, which makes sense, then Alliance would be out as well. That leaves a major population center as an island.

 

That doesn't alter my enthusiasm in any way, but I can see where some communities may not be all that excited about that. Unless, of course, the project could, in some way, be tied to manufacturing in these cities.

 

This is probably about the 3rd time I've suggested this on this forum, but there is a way to bring Canton and Akron into the fold, but probably not until toward the final build-out phases of the Ohio Hub:

 

A couple of round trips per day for each of the Cleveland-Chicago, Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit, and Cleveland-Buffalo routes proposed in the Ohio Hub could start in Canton and serve Akron as well.  Earlier on in the project, they could be served by bus connections. 

 

This isn't anything out of the ordinary when looking at other corridors in the country.  Some of the Detroit-Chicago corridor trains terminate in Pontiac, Michigan, some of the LA-San Diego trains terminate in San Luis Obispo, north of Los Angeles, and some of the NEC trains are extended to Newport News, VA. 

 

If someone who lives down that way would pass this idea along to the politicians  in Akron and Canton, it would go along way to making them more enthusiastic. 

 

I don't disagree with you. But I think that what we are seeing is that communities being bypassed by the Hub are less enthusiastic about it (especially their Republican reps).

 

We need to appeal to them that this benefits all communities, not just those on the mainline.

 

Perhaps, and I hate to suggest this as it sounds protectionist, but here is an opportunity...

 

Someone is going to get HSR in the US. Someone else has to manufacture it. My guess is that there are many Midwest proposals that are going to look good on paper. Why don't we suggest that the manufacturing be targeted toward interests in the Midwest (namely, Ohio)? We have the people, the facilities and the need.

 

Think about this another way. Ohio had no need for destroyers or aircraft carriers, but Ohio was a significant contributor to WWII and post WWII construction and engineering.

 

So we throw out a couple of bones. The funding is approved for 3-C but there is a set-aside for X% of the total contracts to be awarded to Ohio businesses IF they are competitive. You have Republic in Canton, and the industries of Akron, the port in Toledo, manufacturing in Cleveland and the Ohio River ports to the east where there is steel. Get them on board (pun intended), and maybe you have a mandate.

 

 

 

 

I received a very considerate response from Thomas Suddes to an e-mail in which I had argued against many of the points that he had made in his opinion piece on railroading the Ohio Constitution. For what it is worth, he acknowledged that he agreed with most of my points but that his argument was against the way that the Democrats proposed to avoid involving the legislature in the final approval process.

 

It is unfortunate that in his anger against this legislative maneuver, he felt it necessary to regurgitate the same well-worn (and disproved) arguments that we are hearing from our uninformed legislators. It is unfortunate when rhetoric trumps fact, especially when the rhetoric is used to inflame people's biases.

 

 

Did you call him out on this? 

Just had a beer with the guy who wrote the Plain Dealer overview of the 3-C debate. He seems interested in the issue and is pleasantly surprised that the PD gave him 35 column inches to examine it. He said he understands where the Ohio GOP is coming from, and laments that the state is not forthcoming with answers (not all the answers are available, but ORDC already has a lot of other info that does not seem to be coming out, for whatever reason).

 

Anyhow, I made the point that Republican legislators are asking lots and lots of questions about a $250 million project to connect four of Ohio's seven largest cities, but do not ask similar questions about $250 million projects to rebuild a single highway interchange in a single city.

 

Maybe in the Senate, we should get Democrats to ask about the studies and the payoffs and the subsidies for every planned highway interchange to be added or rebuilt.

If you're talking about the 70-71 Split...it's more like $1.6-Billion for two interchanges that cover barely over two miles of highway.

I was actually thinking of more run-of-the-mill projects. In 1998-99-2000, ODOT spent over $110 million to widen the North Outerbelt, including a new I-270/Rt. 315 interchange. Last year, ODOT finished new Rt. 161 interchanges at Sunbury and I-270, originally billed at about $110 million. In the last couple of years, they've been talking about a $200 million rebuild of the North Outerbelt -- again -- with new interchanges at I-71, Rt. 23 and Rt. 315. Where's the legislative scrutiny of hundreds of millions to rebuild the same stretches of highway twice in 10 years? Was that a wise use of scarce ODOT dollars? What has been the payoff of that?

 

 

I received a very considerate response from Thomas Suddes to an e-mail in which I had argued against many of the points that he had made in his opinion piece on railroading the Ohio Constitution. For what it is worth, he acknowledged that he agreed with most of my points but that his argument was against the way that the Democrats proposed to avoid involving the legislature in the final approval process.

 

It is unfortunate that in his anger against this legislative maneuver, he felt it necessary to regurgitate the same well-worn (and disproved) arguments that we are hearing from our uninformed legislators. It is unfortunate when rhetoric trumps fact, especially when the rhetoric is used to inflame people's biases.

 

 

Good points... I am surprised at Suddes.  I don't remember him being so reactionary even though, admitedly, the Dems dropped the ball on this on.

I was actually thinking of more run-of-the-mill projects. In 1998-99-2000, ODOT spent over $110 million to widen the North Outerbelt, including a new I-270/Rt. 315 interchange. Last year, ODOT finished new Rt. 161 interchanges at Sunbury and I-270, originally billed at about $110 million. In the last couple of years, they've been talking about a $200 million rebuild of the North Outerbelt -- again -- with new interchanges at I-71, Rt. 23 and Rt. 315. Where's the legislative scrutiny of hundreds of millions to rebuild the same stretches of highway twice in 10 years? Was that a wise use of scarce ODOT dollars? What has been the payoff of that?

 

 

These are all good questions, but ODOT's Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) was set up to address these very issues. Every ODOT project mentioned went through a public review and scoring process. As for the public benefits of those projects, the roads carry more than 100,000+ vehicles per day, and the congestion benefits of the projects were quantifiable; if one doesn't care about traffic congestion, perhaps the 70/71 split crash statistics (about 2 crashes per day) are more compelling reasons to fix these roads.

 

Of course there are counter-arguments -- often expressed in these pages -- regarding the negative societal consequences of road construction and automobile dependence. But once again, I endorse the TRAC as the transcendent entity to address these issues. Last year, ODOT and the TRAC revised project selection criteria in an attempt to address multi-modalism, urban redevelopment, and economic development.

 

As a longtime transportation watcher, I am surprised by the pushback against the 3-C corridor initiative. But there seems to have been an error in strategy, political tactics, or both. One error might have been that -- after two years of completely shutting down ODOT's project development pipeline, the administration featured just one project (3-c rail) in its two year budget. As an aside, it is dismaying that after years of various rail studies, ORDC couldn't answer fundamental questions such as capital cost and ongoing operating subsidies. Around the country, successful transportation initiatives are formed around a program of investments, rather than just one.

 

IMHO, the administration would have had more success introducing the 3-C passenger rail project through the TRAC, in conjunction with the many other wanted/needed transportation investments from around the state. Like many projects in TRAC Tier II, the 3-C corridor needs years of study and public debate. Indeed, the history of TRAC's involvement with transit projects shows they have at least a 10 year germination cycle. I believe Ohio's political institutions can accept rail as part of a balanced, planned transportation program, with key policy questions fully vetted. Making 3-C passenger rail the administration's singular reason d'etre does not seem to be playing well. 

I was actually thinking of more run-of-the-mill projects. In 1998-99-2000, ODOT spent over $110 million to widen the North Outerbelt, including a new I-270/Rt. 315 interchange. Last year, ODOT finished new Rt. 161 interchanges at Sunbury and I-270, originally billed at about $110 million. In the last couple of years, they've been talking about a $200 million rebuild of the North Outerbelt -- again -- with new interchanges at I-71, Rt. 23 and Rt. 315. Where's the legislative scrutiny of hundreds of millions to rebuild the same stretches of highway twice in 10 years? Was that a wise use of scarce ODOT dollars? What has been the payoff of that?

 

More than that, what is the rationale? The Interstate highway system (as it exists, today) was envisioned by a man concerned with the logistics of moving military convoys across the United States (although the final design was civilian purposed). The final plan was modeled after Germany's Autobahn (ironic, isn't it, that Germany is now building high speed rail) which was designed for a country much smaller and with much greater population densities. It was first envisioned at a time when the railroads were despised for the stranglehold they had over communities, merchants and consumers and personal and truck transportation was viewed as a way to escape that stranglehold.

 

Eisenhower did not intend for the Interstates to include urban highways (beltways, spurs, etc.). He felt that this should be the responsibility of the states in which the municipality existed and that the purpose of the Federal involvement was to connect municipalities and states. He first found out that urban highways were being built with Interstate funds when he passed construction of the Capitol Beltway on his way to Camp David. He didn't approve but it was too late.

 

The Interstate system was funded at a time when oil was plentiful, gasoline was cheap. The Middle East was essentially passive to the West's hegemony. The United States had just defeated the world's next two largest manufacturing economies and had no real competitors.  Economic growth seemed unstoppable.

 

The flaw in the way that we currently think about transportation in the US is our failure to consider the environment in which many prior tranportation decisions were made. What seemed like a good idea in 1956 may not be a good idea, today. The issue is not whether we have shovel ready uncompleted road projects but whether we should have them at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These are all good questions, but ODOT's Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) was set up to address these very issues. Every ODOT project mentioned went through a public review and scoring process. As for the public benefits of those projects, the roads carry more than 100,000+ vehicles per day, and the congestion benefits of the projects were quantifiable; if one doesn't care about traffic congestion, perhaps the 70/71 split crash statistics (about 2 crashes per day) are more compelling reasons to fix these roads.

I have had the "pleasure" of frequent travel to Washington DC for the past 40 years. Everytime they add a lane to the Beltway or I-270 in order to ease congestion, they simply create more congestion.  What will relieve congestion is a contracting economy, not more roads.

 

Moreover, while there has been much public discussion of the long term operating subsidies for rail, the same discussions never seem to take place regarding highways, roads and bridges. Many states have a 10-year backlog of road improvement, road resufacing, bridge improvement, traffic signal improvement, etc., projects which are underfunded due to a lack of Federal support. In the past 8 years, that has been primarily because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the next 8 years, add to that the cost of the deficit, expansion in social programs, and I wouldn't be expecting Uncle Sam to be paying for all of this.

 

Finally, most states transportation budgets are based upon Federal formulas which reflect a 50 year bias toward roads and highways. This administration has already said that it intends to change that. If I were a transportation planner I'd be giving that a lot of thought.

 

These are all good questions, but ODOT's Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) was set up to address these very issues. Every ODOT project mentioned went through a public review and scoring process. As for the public benefits of those projects, the roads carry more than 100,000+ vehicles per day, and the congestion benefits of the projects were quantifiable; if one doesn't care about traffic congestion, perhaps the 70/71 split crash statistics (about 2 crashes per day) are more compelling reasons to fix these roads.

 

Of course there are counter-arguments -- often expressed in these pages -- regarding the negative societal consequences of road construction and automobile dependence. But once again, I endorse the TRAC as the transcendent entity to address these issues. Last year, ODOT and the TRAC revised project selection criteria in an attempt to address multi-modalism, urban redevelopment, and economic development.

 

As a longtime transportation watcher, I am surprised by the pushback against the 3-C corridor initiative. But there seems to have been an error in strategy, political tactics, or both. One error might have been that -- after two years of completely shutting down ODOT's project development pipeline, the administration featured just one project (3-c rail) in its two year budget. As an aside, it is dismaying that after years of various rail studies, ORDC couldn't answer fundamental questions such as capital cost and ongoing operating subsidies. Around the country, successful transportation initiatives are formed around a program of investments, rather than just one.

 

IMHO, the administration would have had more success introducing the 3-C passenger rail project through the TRAC, in conjunction with the many other wanted/needed transportation investments from around the state. Like many projects in TRAC Tier II, the 3-C corridor needs years of study and public debate. Indeed, the history of TRAC's involvement with transit projects shows they have at least a 10 year germination cycle. I believe Ohio's political institutions can accept rail as part of a balanced, planned transportation program, with key policy questions fully vetted. Making 3-C passenger rail the administration's singular reason d'etre does not seem to be playing well.

 

While I would agree that the Governor, legislature and/or ODOT made some strategic blunders in how this project was presented, I disagree that we need another ten years of study.  There have already been years and years of study, ask KJP, it's just that too few of us have been paying attention.  I forget where we are in the process for the 3-C corridor but it has been slowed by the trickle of rail funding in this state -- we're somewhere between the economic impact study and the environmental impact study and as soon as we have money to complete that process we'll be ready to go.  Unlike the highway system, the basic layout of the route is already in place it just needs a few connections and upgrades to make it happen.

 

Moreover, we now have an opportunity to get basic service started with 100% federal funding to upgrade the infrastructure!  That may never happen again and the longer we grumble about "more study needed" the more likely Indiana gets that federal money to build out a rail network and then high speed rail.  I believe seanmcl made this point earlier. 

 

How do we get this message to the legislators blocking this project?  Maybe they need to see copies of the studies that have been done and we need to highlight the economic advantages.  Improving the route for passengers will also improve the route for freight.  Then we'd have some competition for the trucking industry (competition is always good, right?)  Seems to me that could be quite an advantage for say Indianapolis -- relatively low midwest-cost-of-living with convenient (and future high speed) rail access to Chicago (which also clears bottlenecks and improves freight rail traffic).  How would a company looking to relocate then compare the 3-C's to a city on the Indiana rail network?  I would think that this economic view would motivate our Republican reps, but so far it hasn't seemed to. 

 

I don't know the details of how the TRAC process works, and maybe TRAC would have been a proper vehicle for this project,  but the time to move forward is now.  If we don't, our neighbor states will.  I hope that the whatever needs to be fixed in the legislation gets fixed (probably need to take future funding issues away from the Controlling Board and give it back to a future legislature) and we move forward rather than letting this opportunity pass to our competitor-neighbor states.  How can we get this message to the people who stand in the way of making this happen?

Just a little more on TRAC: state law (ORC 5512) created TRAC to administer the "project selection process for the prioritization of new transportation capacity projects." It is a public body created by the legislature and governor, designed to make public decisions that are (frankly) outside the whims of the General Assembly and/or the Governor. I argue that state law directs the 3-C passenger rail decision to go to TRAC, and that ODOT budget testimony is not the appropriate venue for the decision.

 

To the point of years of study on the 3-C initiative: I agree it is frustratingly long, but not unlike other unique public works projects. However, when ORDC was asked about annual operating subsidies, the response was in effect: "That's what AMTRAK is studying." I agree its been studied a lot--why ORDC didn't have some fundamental answers after those years of study, or would not provide the answers, I do not know.

When you're trying to sell a product to a customer who isn't sure he wants to buy it, "I don't know" is not an effective sales pitch. Give him something to chew on.

 

On the other hand, the GOP's response to using federal stimulus money for 3-C Corridor is like having the Prize Patrol come to your door and asking this bearer of good news "but how much income tax do I have to pay?"

To the point of years of study on the 3-C initiative: I agree it is frustratingly long, but not unlike other unique public works projects. However, when ORDC was asked about annual operating subsidies, the response was in effect: "That's what AMTRAK is studying." I agree its been studied a lot--why ORDC didn't have some fundamental answers after those years of study, or would not provide the answers, I do not know.

 

I don't disagree that the anwer to the question is important. What I disagree with is comparing apples to oranges.  Assuming that we kept everything functioning at peak levels (and don't forego maintenance to some other session of the legislature), what is the operational cost of our roadways? Add to that the hidden costs of traffic accidents, traffic law enforcement,  increased respiratory disease due to engine emissions, lost productivity due to sitting in traffic, taxpayer costs associated with parking, insurance, automobile maintenance, our expensive involvement in the Middle East in order to protect world oil markets, etc.

 

My point is that operating subsidies are an easy target but they don't get at the real costs. For that, you need a much more complicated economic model which, quite frankly, I doubt that many of our legislators can understand. When our legislators oversimplify for the purposes of shaping (or appealing to) a certain mindset, they do a disservice to their constituents.

 

Moreover, many Republicans (I don't say fiscal conservatives because they are not), are opposed to programs that, in reality, are very business friendly. Paul Weyrich, who died recently, was a staunch fiscal conservative who, nonetheless, was a fervent supporter of public and mass transit. He appreciated something that most of our Republican ideologues do not.

 

 

I think your point is valid and the subject of a much broader inquiry. But the legislature isn't asking for a societal accounting of one mode versus another, just a simple answer of how much the 3-C rail will cost annually to operate. I disagree that it is an apples to orange comparison, as the ODOT/ORDC budget clearly lays out the annual operating costs for the state highway system. I also agree that some GOP members are simply being reactionary to the 3-C proposal, but I attribute this to the administration's tactics more than anything else.

I disagree that it is an apples to orange comparison, as the ODOT/ORDC budget clearly lays out the annual operating costs for the state highway system.

First of all, you need to subtract from the roadway operating costs those costs which would be eliminated through the switch to mass transit.

 

Second, if what you said about budgeting were true, there should be NO shovel-ready highway projects in Ohio which involve road, highway and bridge repairs, rehabilitation, adding lanes, etc., because these should have been anticipated and budgeted as part of the cost of operating the roadway to begin with.  Wanna bet whether that is the case or not?

 

And, yes, I view the addition of lanes as an operating costs. As I have said, before, roads do not alleviate congestion, they simply increase the number of vehicle trips necessary to cause it and increased supply leads to increased demand (why not, it is free). Anyone considering building a four lane highway anywhere near a major municipality should include the cost of the additional two lanes as part of the operating cost of the highway, since these can be reliably predicted.

 

I also agree that some GOP members are simply being reactionary to the 3-C proposal, but I attribute this to the administration's tactics more than anything else.

 

I disagree that it has to do with the administration's "tactics" (whatever they are).  Many GOP members in the legislature are having the exact same reaction that many GOP members in legislatures all over the country and in congress have about this issue:  the same, uninformed, ideological knee-jerk reaction about passenger trains.  It's been happening for years.  It's deja vu all over again...

I disagree that it has to do with the administration's "tactics" (whatever they are). Many GOP members in the legislature are having the exact same reaction that many GOP members in legislatures all over the country and in congress have about this issue: the same, uninformed, ideological knee-jerk reaction about passenger trains. It's been happening for years. It's deja vu all over again...

 

The "tactics" are to try to take the legislature out of the final approval for 3-C. However, and I say this as a social liberal who has been a fiscal conservative for many years, the second part of your statement seems to be right on. Look for David Brooks' OP-ED piece today in which he characterizes the Republicans as the party to "just say 'no'". They seem to have latched onto this idea that opposing anything to do with the economic recovery plan (including the use of funds for 3-C), is the strategy they need to win in 2012. Rush Limbaugh has stated that he wants this President to fail. But if this President fails, all of us will be in deep water. Whether we agree with the policies or not, no sane person can want economic recovery to fail.

 

Has leadership devolved to the point where it relies on someone else's failure rather than your own successes?

 

 

Maybe the tactics are being employed because of the "just say no" Republicans?  I'm not justifying it. just an observation.  If more conservative states like Oklahoma and North Carolina can pull off funding rail corridors through their legislatures, we should be able to it here in Ohio with some hard work building grass roots support. 

I disagree that it is an apples to orange comparison, as the ODOT/ORDC budget clearly lays out the annual operating costs for the state highway system.

1. First of all, you need to subtract from the roadway operating costs those costs which would be eliminated through the switch to mass transit.

 

2. Second, if what you said about budgeting were true, there should be NO shovel-ready highway projects in Ohio which involve road, highway and bridge repairs, rehabilitation, adding lanes, etc., because these should have been anticipated and budgeted as part of the cost of operating the roadway to begin with. Wanna bet whether that is the case or not?

 

3. And, yes, I view the addition of lanes as an operating costs. As I have said, before, roads do not alleviate congestion, they simply increase the number of vehicle trips necessary to cause it and increased supply leads to increased demand (why not, it is free). Anyone considering building a four lane highway anywhere near a major municipality should include the cost of the additional two lanes as part of the operating cost of the highway, since these can be reliably predicted.

 

 

1. The "switch to mass transit" is about 2%, based on American rail experience, so that is not fertile ground -- mode shifts don't save highway operating costs.

 

2. Second point isn't valid: ODOT budgeted projects -- a project pipeline as it were -- for its anticipated revenues as required by STIP (federal law). ODOT legally could not have a "more full pipeline," so couldn't have planned for the stimulus bill to have projects at the ready. ODOT has a long range financial plan that does consider operating, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs.

 

3. There are studies which support your view, but the bulk of credible research on the subject is more nuanced, and points to land use policy as more important than transportation policy (indeed, transportation agencies in America mostly "chase" development).

I also agree that some GOP members are simply being reactionary to the 3-C proposal, but I attribute this to the administration's tactics more than anything else.

 

I disagree that it has to do with the administration's "tactics" (whatever they are). Many GOP members in the legislature are having the exact same reaction that many GOP members in legislatures all over the country and in congress have about this issue: the same, uninformed, ideological knee-jerk reaction about passenger trains. It's been happening for years. It's deja vu all over again...

 

I sympathize with your view, but perhaps offer a different perspective. In my time in state transportation policy, I have witnessed, and been a part of, the promotion of many highway projects which were "stinkers" in terms of public benefit. Such projects would have never stood on their own if placed before a legislative body for a "thumbs up, thumbs down" type of vote. You can imagine, Northwest Ohio Fort-to-Port, versus Southeast Ohio appalachian roads. On their own merit, you won't get a public body to endorse such projects with narrow beneficiaries. But if presented as part of a portfolio of transportation investments, elected officials empathize with others' priorities, and a program of projects can move forward. Yes, opposition is coming from the GOP -- hello? Did no one anticipate that?

 

IMHO, the administration would have had more success introducing the 3-C passenger rail project through the TRAC, in conjunction with the many other wanted/needed transportation investments from around the state. Like many projects in TRAC Tier II, the 3-C corridor needs years of study and public debate. Indeed, the history of TRAC's involvement with transit projects shows they have at least a 10 year germination cycle. I believe Ohio's political institutions can accept rail as part of a balanced, planned transportation program, with key policy questions fully vetted. Making 3-C passenger rail the administration's singular reason d'etre does not seem to be playing well.

 

The main issue with going through TRAC is that TRAC is broke. The current Tier I projects are being pushed back to meet budget constraints and with each delay the cost of these projects increase. The administration also sees the possibility of stimulus funds for the 3-C project (i.e. no local match (state funds) are required). Hence, the reason for pushing it through this way instead of the TRAC process.

All, please note there are three entities or types of entities eligible to submit applications for passenger rail stimulus funds: state departments of transportation, compacts of states, or Amtrak.

 

If ODOT is unable to submit this application, then we go through Amtrak with the backing of the Ohio Congressional Delegation and, of course, Obama's USDOT. Remember which state gave Obama the final electoral college votes necessary to put him in the White House? These are federal funds (both the stimulus for capital/start-up and CM/AQ for operating costs). Screw the state assembly. Going through them was a courtesy call. But when someone spits on your attempt at a handshake, you go around them -- especially when you don't really need them.

^Certainly there is a way around the state assembly for capital/start up funds, but I thought a portion of the operating/maintenance costs would have to come from the state(s).  I could be way wrong, but at some point the state of Ohio would have to pay a portion of operating costs.  CMAQ funds almost always carry a mandatory match (20 percent typically) from the local agency, which is why the stimulus funding is such a hot ticket in that no local match is required.

 

 

The main issue with going through TRAC is that TRAC is broke. The current Tier I projects are being pushed back to meet budget constraints and with each delay the cost of these projects increase. The administration also sees the possibility of stimulus funds for the 3-C project (i.e. no local match (state funds) are required). Hence, the reason for pushing it through this way instead of the TRAC process.

 

There is a misconception that the TRAC is "broke," as ODOT is 1) still doing hundreds of millions a year in major capacity projects, and 2) the stimulus funding (especially for rail) only adds to the TRAC/ODOT financial picture. Plus there is a reauthorization bill on the horizon, and it is a good bet that there will be more rail program funding in that bill.

 

But KJP makes an interesting point that there are other entities that can apply for these rail funds. Ultimately though, doesn't the General Assembly have to appropriate operating funds?

1. The "switch to mass transit" is about 2%, based on American rail experience, so that is not fertile ground -- mode shifts don't save highway operating costs.

 

References, please. This may be true, but based upon passenger miles on the DC Metro versus I-270, I rather doubt it.

 

2. Second point isn't valid: ODOT budgeted projects -- a project pipeline as it were -- for its anticipated revenues as required by STIP (federal law).

I wasn't talking about "budgeted projects". I was referring to projects which had been identified as needing to be done but for which there was not, yet, a budget. Every state has these, they must. The Federal budget isn't known that far in advance of the fiscal year to allow the states to prepare transportation plans only after the Federal budget was known. Instead, states have lists of projects and in any given year pick from the lists those projects which are the highest priority and which fit under the Federal formula. Those projects which are required for maintenance, rehabilitation or upgrade should have been automatically budgeted along with the construction costs. You don't build a house without a long term financial plan for upkeep and maintenance. Those are recurring cost which are automatically budgeted with the cost of construction. To the extent that you don't do this, you are ignoring the true cost of the project.

 

My only point is that I don't see Republicans discussing the cost of road, bridge and highway subsidies but they exist and, over time, they can exceed the costs of initial construction.

 

ODOT legally could not have a "more full pipeline," so couldn't have planned for the stimulus bill to have projects at the ready. ODOT has a long range financial plan that does consider operating, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs.

 

Sure, and isn't that a subsidy? So what percentage of the state budget goes to road, bridge and highway subsidies?

 

I am not saying that the question is not legitimate. What I am saying is that you have to consider the entire operating budget of the state to determine what costs are reasonable and what aren't. Every piece of new construction is going to have associated with it an operating subsidy. Perhaps if Ohioans had a look at the entire budget and had to pick and choose they might make a different choice than they would if you singled out one project in order to emphasize its operating costs.

 

3. There are studies which support your view, but the bulk of credible research on the subject is more nuanced, and points to land use policy as more important than transportation policy (indeed, transportation agencies in America mostly "chase" development).

 

That is because transportation planners are not as smart as Ray Kroc (McDonalds). Kroc realized that the value of property increases  in inverse proportion to the distance to a roadway. McDonalds' model was to buy the property then either own, outright or lease the business back to the franchisees. The railroads knew this as well which is why they could determine whether a community lived or died on the basis of where they located track. Many people are justifiably concerned about sprawl and its impacts on established communities. We cannot sustain unplanned growth and we can't encourage it by agreeing to build new roads to service these developments.

 

One of the things that people don't like about rail is the way that it economically restricts land use but, in fact, that is a blessing because it puts an end to speculation and to the adverse overall effect that it has on established communities.

 

But KJP makes an interesting point that there are other entities that can apply for these rail funds. Ultimately though, doesn't the General Assembly have to appropriate operating funds?

 

Is that true with ODOT's allocation of Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds? I don't recall the General Assembly being involved with the decision last fall to use CMAQ funds to bail out existing public transportation systems in NE Ohio. And that was a stretch because CMAQ isn't supposed to be used for existing transit. There are precedents for using CMAQ for intercity rail, including Maine's Downeaster service and NCDOT deciding to use CMAQ funds for its third round trip between Charlotte and Raleigh starting later this year.

 

And these are funds that the highway folks have been clamoring for. The fact that there were still substantial CMAQ dollars left of ODOT books as of late last year makes me wonder if ODOT or applicants to ODOT are coveting these funds. So let's put 'em to good use!

1. The "switch to mass transit" is about 2%, based on American rail experience, so that is not fertile ground -- mode shifts don't save highway operating costs.

 

References, please. This may be true, but based upon passenger miles on the DC Metro versus I-270, I rather doubt it.

 

2. Second point isn't valid: ODOT budgeted projects -- a project pipeline as it were -- for its anticipated revenues as required by STIP (federal law).

I wasn't talking about "budgeted projects". I was referring to projects which had been identified as needing to be done but for which there was not, yet, a budget. Every state has these, they must. The Federal budget isn't known that far in advance of the fiscal year to allow the states to prepare transportation plans only after the Federal budget was known. Instead, states have lists of projects and in any given year pick from the lists those projects which are the highest priority and which fit under the Federal formula. Those projects which are required for maintenance, rehabilitation or upgrade should have been automatically budgeted along with the construction costs. You don't build a house without a long term financial plan for upkeep and maintenance. Those are recurring cost which are automatically budgeted with the cost of construction. To the extent that you don't do this, you are ignoring the true cost of the project.

 

My only point is that I don't see Republicans discussing the cost of road, bridge and highway subsidies but they exist and, over time, they can exceed the costs of initial construction.

 

ODOT legally could not have a "more full pipeline," so couldn't have planned for the stimulus bill to have projects at the ready. ODOT has a long range financial plan that does consider operating, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs.

 

Sure, and isn't that a subsidy? So what percentage of the state budget goes to road, bridge and highway subsidies?

 

I am not saying that the question is not legitimate. What I am saying is that you have to consider the entire operating budget of the state to determine what costs are reasonable and what aren't. Every piece of new construction is going to have associated with it an operating subsidy. Perhaps if Ohioans had a look at the entire budget and had to pick and choose they might make a different choice than they would if you singled out one project in order to emphasize its operating costs.

 

3. There are studies which support your view, but the bulk of credible research on the subject is more nuanced, and points to land use policy as more important than transportation policy (indeed, transportation agencies in America mostly "chase" development).

 

That is because transportation planners are not as smart as Ray Kroc (McDonalds). Kroc realized that the value of property increases in inverse proportion to the distance to a roadway. McDonalds' model was to buy the property then either own, outright or lease the business back to the franchisees. The railroads knew this as well which is why they could determine whether a community lived or died on the basis of where they located track. Many people are justifiably concerned about sprawl and its impacts on established communities. We cannot sustain unplanned growth and we can't encourage it by agreeing to build new roads to service these developments.

 

One of the things that people don't like about rail is the way that it economically restricts land use but, in fact, that is a blessing because it puts an end to speculation and to the adverse overall effect that it has on established communities.

 

 

The folks on these threads know the references to rail-road modal splits. In DC about 12-15% of peak hour ridership is by transit, which is relatively high in America. Other cities like in the Midwest experience or predict a more modest shift. You can see this in the Ohio Hub study, for example, or in the MORPC long range plan.

 

The discussion of road versus rail operating costs or subsidies is becoming circular. I understand your point. My point remains that road costs as you define them are available from ODOT, and the 3-C rail operating costs apparently are not.

 

And I think we transportation planners are plenty smart! 

 

 

The folks on these threads know the references to rail-road modal splits. In DC about 12-15% of peak hour ridership is by transit, which is relatively high in America. Other cities like in the Midwest experience or predict a more modest shift. You can see this in the Ohio Hub study, for example, or in the MORPC long range plan.

 

The DC Metro was maticulously planned and included some significant social engineering. For example, it was deliberately decided to not build stops in economically disadvantaged areas until stops in more affluent areas were built. You probably couldn't get away with that, now (or, at least, you couldn't make that an explicit reason), but the intent was to appeal to the business class, first and wean them from their dependency on autos. They also made the stops adjacent to the main Interstate arteries into the city, built park-and-ride lots and established a feeder bus service. It was a very well designed network.

 

And I think we transportation planners are plenty smart! 

 

You haven't lived in Pittsburgh, I presume.

 

KLF's point is that there is a state program (a well-established one at that) for funding roads. There is no such program for rail.

 

There wasn't even a federal-state matching fund program established by the feds until last year. So there was no guidance. Most states were doing their own thing, which was pretty much how things were done with highways until you started getting some federal aid highway  programs in the 1940s and early 1950s, and then the Interstate Highway law in 1956.

 

The Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act of 2008 was the rail equivalent of the one of the federal aid highway laws of the late 1940s or early 1950s. PRIIA was a huge step forward but not yet the big enchilada and states like Ohio are still trying to catch up. Even the stimulus bill isn't yet the great hope for passenger rail. It's a game changer, no question. But most state officials in places like Ohio aren't aware how much things have changed on the federal front in just the past six months.